Benefits for Govt worker's gay partners

Don't mean to start anything with the article, but thought some would find it interesting.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, a White House official said.

Obama planned to announce his decision Wednesday in the Oval Office, the official said. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because Obama had not signed a presidential memorandum putting his plan into place.

The decision is a political nod to a reliably Democratic voting bloc that has become impatient with the White House in recent weeks.

Several powerful gay fundraisers withdrew their support from a Democratic National Committee event June 25 where Vice President Joe Biden is expected to speak. Their exit came in response to a Justice Department brief last week that defended the Defense of Marriage Act, a prime target for gay and lesbian criticism.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GAY_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-17-08-13-41

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I worked as a pathologists' assistant at a downtown pathology laboratory for two years before becoming an MT. For any of you IGNORANT, lost souls out there who still believe in abortion...PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GO WORK IN A PATHOLOGY LAB FOR A BIT - one that processes aborted fetuses (even better, a government funded lab). THEN you can talk to us about women being allowed to have a CHOICE to MURDER these babies. I am sorry, but you are just talking out your AS*HOLE when you say that women should have a CHOICE, but have not seen firsthand what they are CHOOSING to KILL. At the size of 6 weeks from conception, most of these tiny BABIES have tooth buds, sex organs, lips, nostrils, skin, facial features.....EVERYTHING you would expect to see on a full-term infant....they are just much smaller. IF ABORTION IS SO INNOCENT....WHY WON'T THEY SHOW THIS ON TELEVISION for everyone out there to see what the REAL TRUTH about ABORTION-MURDER is!!! Do NOT let the Obama, the U.S. government, or anyone else out there FOOL you about it. ABORTION AND MURDER HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH RELIGION!!!! It is 100% a matter of WRONG vs. RIGHT. And....this message is NOT just my opinion, but 100% TRUTH. Will you one day allow sexual molestation of children too? There are a lot of sick people out there who want to molest children.....so.....maybe we should just allow it.....right? This seems to be the mentality of most of you "ABORTION RIGHTS NUT CASES." When your daughter or son ends up aborting your grandchild against your will and pays for it with YOUR TAX DOLLARS....maybe you will feel differently about turning a blind eye to this SAVAGE AND INHUMANE MURDER that we are allowing to happen and being FORCED BY OUR GOVERNMENT to pay for!!! ALSO....ALL UMBILICAL CORDS CONTAIN STEM CELLS. THERE IS NO REASON TO CREATE AN EMBRYO IN ORDER TO DO STEM CELL RESEARCH. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATE THAT ALL WOMEN DELIVERING BABIES VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THE REMAINING UMBILICAL CORD FROM THE PLACENTA AT THE TIME OF BIRTH FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH/TREATMENT!!! And......the HIV virus HAS been proven to reside in SALIVA and ALL BODILY FLUIDS AND TISSUES and, therefore, it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, without the element of doubt, that HIV can ONLY be transmitted through the transmission of BLOOD. WE ARE A VERY, VERY STUPID SOCIETY OF PEOPLE AND VERY GULLIBLE. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE AMERICA!!!

She says she was kicked, beaten, punched and then thrown to the ground. The attacker could have been over her, upside down, when he did the carving.... just a thought to those who doubt the "backwards B."

Okay. I see the picture developing. It was okay that Clinton lied, but just because you think Bush lied he should be impeached post haste. Just want to be sure I'm reading you right here.

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

By Nathaniel R. Helms

Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment. The soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.

The soldiers asked for anonymity because they are concerned they will face retaliation for going public with the Army's apparently new directive. At the sources' requests DefenseWatch has also agreed not to reveal the unit at which the incident occured for operational security reasons.

On Saturday morning a soldier affected by the order reported to DefenseWatch that the directive specified that all commercially available body armor was prohibited. The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida. It arrived unexpectedly while his unit was preparing to deploy on combat operations. The soldier said the order was deeply disturbiing to many of the men who had used their own money to purchase Dragon Skin because it will affect both their mobility and ballistic protection.

We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply. he said.

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action could be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

As of this report Saturday morning the Army has not yet responded to a DefenseWatch inquiry.

Recently Dragon Skin became an item of contention between proponents of the Interceptor OTV body armor generally issued to all service members deploying in combat theaters and its growing legion of critics. Critics of the Interceptor OTV system say it is ineffective and inferior to Dragon Skin, as well as several other commercially available body armor systems on the market. Last week DefenseWatch released a secret Marine Corps report that determined that 80% of the 401 Marines killed in Iraq between April 2004 and June 2005 might have been saved if the Interceptor OTV body armor they were wearing was more effective. The Army has declined to comment on the report because doing so could aid the enemy, an Army spokesman has repeatedly said.

A U.S. Army spokesman was not available for comment at the time DW's original report (Friday - 1700 CST) was published. DefenseWatch continues to seek a response from the Army and will post one as soon as it becomes available. Yesterday the DoD released a news story through the Armed Forces News Service that quoted Maj. Gen. Steven Speaks, the Army's director of force development, who countered critical media reports by denying that the U.S. military is behind the curve in providing appropriate force protection gear for troops deployed to Iraq and elsewhere in the global war against terrorism. The New York Tiimes and Washington Post led the bandwagon of mainstream media that capitalized on DefenseWatch's release of the Marine Corps study. Both newspapers released the forensic information the Army and Marines are unwilling to discuss.

Those headlines entirely miss the point, Speaks said.

The effort to improve body armor has been a programmatic effort in the case of the Army that has gone on with great intensity for the last five months, he noted.

Speaks' assessment contradicts earlier Army, Marine and DoD statements that indicated as late as last week that the Army was certain there was nothing wrong with Interceptor OTV body armor and that it was and remains the best body armor in the world.

One of the soldiers who lost his coveted Dragon Skin is a veteran operator. He reported that his commander expressed deep regret upon issuing his orders directing him to leave his Dragon Skin body armor behind. The commander reportedly told his subordinates that he had no choice because the orders came from very high up and had to be enforced, the soldier said. Another soldier's story was corroborated by his mother, who helped defray the $6,000 cost of buying the Dragon Skin, she said.

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was so much better than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

He didn't want to use that other stuff, she said. He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell.

At the time the orders were issued the two soldiers had already loaded their Dragon Skin body armor onto the pallets being used to air freight their gear into the operational theater, the soldiers said. They subsequently removed it pursuant to their orders.

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th Nightstalkers Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to evaluate the body armor in a combat environment. Chopra said he did not know the names of the general officers wearing the Dragon Skin.

Pinnacle claims more than 3,000 soldiers and civilians stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan are wearing Dragon Skin body armor, Chopra said. Several months ago DefenseWatch began receiving anecdotal reports from individual soldiers that they were being forced to remove all non-issue gear while in theater, including Dragon Skin body armor, boots, and various kinds of non-issue ancillary equipment.

Last year the DoD, under severe pressure from Congress, authorized a one-time $1,000 reimbursement to soldiers who had purchased civilian equipment to supplement either inadequate or unavailable equipment they needed for combat operations. At the time there was no restriction on what the soldiers could buy as long as it was specifically intended to offer personal protection or further their mission capabilities while in theater.

So what are you saying? That it is fair for them to admit incompetence, whine for help and take the people's money, but its nobody's business what they spend it on? Corporate welfare has got to stop!

This is no different than if a relative came begging for help making their house payment, you gave it to them, then instead they blew it on caviar and a cruise - and expected/demanded more money from you in the future. Would you feel you had the right then to tell them what to do with it? Or would you refuse to give them another cent and let them crash and burn?

In this society, when an individual admits their incompetence and declares (or has concerned others prove) they are unable to handle their affairs, they are made a ward of the court with a guardian or a committee of guardians to tell them what to do with their money and their lives. This is not a temporary situation (such as individual welfare is supposed to be), the government has more huge payments to AIG scheduled.

Yes, there should be strings attached to the money - BIG ones.

My first real job some 30 years ago was a CETA job. That was Comprehensive Employment and Training Act. This was doing medical transcription for a county health department. I worked as a CETA employee for a year, they trained me and paid me, and I have worked in transcription for 30 years, of course moving on to hospital stuff. Made big bucks for quite a few years and now here I am, strangely enough, I think back to the same money I made all those years ago. You've got to keep your sense of humor.

The Federal Reserve (Fed) has gone beyond playing with fire, and may have indeed set the house on fire. It�s one thing to push interest rates to near zero to stimulate the economy; it�s another to �monetize the debt� by printing money to buy government debt. In recent weeks, the Fed has broken outside even those boundaries and become actively engaged in managing the private sector beyond the core banking system. Worse still, the steps taken may be difficult to reverse and as such may shape the U.S. economy for a long time. These steps are taken with the best of intentions, to �save� the economy. The only trouble is that we may be on a slippery slope to destroying capitalism on the way. In �doing whatever it takes� to get the economy back on its feet, the Fed risks destroying the foundation of why the U.S. has been able to establish itself as the world�s leading economic force. Actively participating in credit allocation within the private sector, the Federal Reserve (Fed) jeopardizes the capitalist foundation the U.S. economy is built on. As a result of these actions, the U.S. may be on its way to becoming a modern incarnation of a planned economy.

Why these harsh words? To understand what is so frightening with recent Fed activity, consider that most central banks focus on interest rates, inflation and money supply to promote price stability (and maximum employment in the Fed�s case). Generally, they all influence credit creation by managing the cost of borrowing. Central banks may employ slightly different levers and targets; and while some central banks are better than others at achieving their goals, what they have in common is that they traditionally focus on government debt, mostly short-term Treasuries, to achieve their goals. This is very much by design as good central bank policy leads to an environment of price stability fostering long-term economic prosperity. On the other hand, bad central bank policy may lead to inflation, wide swings in economic activity or unnecessarily high unemployment. However, free market forces will push the private sector to make the best of it. It�s when policy makers start subsidizing ailing sectors of the economy that distortions are created that will come back to haunt us. Traditionally, for better or worse, elected officials decide on the socio-economic fabric of society. Now, the Fed decides which areas of the economy need to be propped up.

The hysteria that has been created by policy makers and the media has allowed the Fed to pursue its recent unorthodox policies. In late September, the world financial system looked rather dire; the government was able to play a role to avoid a disorderly collapse; but the government�s role should have been limited to allowing an orderly adjustment of the excesses of the credit bubble. Instead, the latest salvo to promote the bailouts is that payrolls have dropped by the largest amount since World War II. This may be the case in absolute numbers as the population has grown, but more jobs were lost as a percentage of the workforce in a twelve month period in each of 1982, 1961, 1958, 1954, 1948/49; in many of the cases more than twice as many. Recessions are no fun, neither are personal or corporate bankruptcies; but they may be the cure needed to weed out the excesses of the boom. In contrast, today, hedge fund managers that ran their funds into the ground are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to start anew. Some of the folks that ran Long Term Capital Management into the ground in 1998 started fresh only to have another massive failure in the current credit crisis. We don�t expect the new breed of second chances to be any better. And while the blame lies with the managers, excessively low interest rates contribute to irrational risk taking: all of the bailouts focus on those who have been over-leveraged. What about the group of responsible savers that rely on income? With interest rates near zero, many are tempted to engage in highly leveraged strategies to meet their required income objectives. Pension funds �must� return 6% per year, leaving them little leeway but to give money to hedge fund managers to magically turn 1% yields into 20% returns; the way to achieve this is with leverage. Actually, there is another way: the Swiss public pension fund system just announced that it will scale down its long-term return objective to 4% from its current 6% per annum.

In late December, the Fed Board of Governors approved GMAC�s application to become a bank. The vote was 4-1, and the one board member with experience as a bank regulator, Elizabeth Duke, dissented. There was another hurdle: GMAC, General Motors� finance arm, did not have sufficient capital to be a bank. That problem was solved, too, in early January, as the Treasury injected $5 billion into GMAC; the Treasury also GM $1 billion, so that GM could inject that money into GMAC. Equipped now with a minimum capital base, GMAC is able to operate as a bank, go to the Fed to access the TARP program, as well as other regular and emergency Fed windows.

In December, car sales fell off the cliff. But it wasn�t only GM that had problems; even Toyota that had access to credit and introduced zero percent financing, recorded a 37% plunge in sales (unlike other car makers, Toyota has traditionally not offered zero percent financing). Shell-shocked consumers are worried about their jobs and have lost a substantial amount of their net worth in 2008; further, incentive programs prior to the bursting of the credit bubble lured consumers into 6-year loans with zero percent financing. Consumers simply don�t want or need a car right now. Policy makers take this as a reason to provide money to GMAC that pursues a business model proven to be ruinous: it simply doesn�t make sense to offer cars at 0% if interest rates are above that, even if they are �close to zero� as they are now. GMAC takes money from the Treasury to be able to request more from the Fed. And the first course of business for GMAC is to extend zero percent financing to consumers with lower credit ratings than had traditionally qualified.

The Fed is only ramping up its mission to allocate credit where the Fed � rather than the free market - deems it appropriate. A major program announced in the fourth quarter, but rolled out in early January consists of a $500 billion program to buy mortgage-backed securities (MBS). The perceived positive is the plummeting of mortgage rates. Consumers with superb credit now qualify for 30-year mortgages at less than 5%. One problem with such programs is that the Fed intentionally inflates prices (lowers the yields) on these securities; in turn, rational market participants may abstain from buying them. As a result the Fed risks replacing private sector activity, rather than encouraging it. Furthermore, the Fed jeopardizes the dollar as foreigners may be discouraged from buying U.S. government and agency security debt; given that the U.S. has become dependent on foreigners to finance its spending needs as well as the unprecedented debt that will be financed in 2009. This is a very dangerous road to be on.

The Fed may be able to phase out its commercial paper subsidy program or drain liquidity from the TARP program over time; however, the $500 billion MBS program may be difficult, if not impossible to unwind. Indeed, the design of the MBS program calls for holding of the securities until maturity. For practical purposes, this means that the Fed�s balance sheet is not just �temporarily� inflated, but that the Fed will permanently keep more money in the economy. Traditionally, the Fed�s balance sheet is $900 billion. Therefore, even if one gives the Fed the benefit of the doubt that the current escalation to over $2 trillion is temporary, there will be a significant hangover as not all additions can easily be removed. This doesn�t even consider that, quite likely, the MBS purchase program may need to be extended beyond the 6-month period it was put in place for. Watch for bond manager Bill Gross this June, calling for the Fed to continue buying MBS, preferably the ones he has on the books, to save the economy from collapse. Incidentally, his firm, PIMCO, is one of the firms managing the Fed program.

To counter the effects of this added money in the economy, the Fed would need to keep interest rates permanently higher. One realistic alternative, however, is that the additional money will stay in the economy as draining it would cause too much economic hardship. This may well embed inflation into the U.S. economy for years to come. Importantly, note that there is little, if any, accountability at the Fed monitoring its actions; no one is there to ensure that the Fed will, at some point, phase out its programs or added powers.

By engaging in credit allocation to specific sectors of the economy, the U.S. is stepping into a territory traditionally left to governments with a socialist or communist brand. Communism has shown us that planned economies don�t work. New Hampshire in 1945 added the slogan �Live Free or Die� to its state emblem, a quote stemming from a general in the Revolutionary war. Translated to the economic crisis, this should mean that a severe recession ought to be the lesser evil than a planned economy. And to continue the parallel, when communism swept Eastern Europe, the standard of living for everyone dropped. In today�s world, we already see that the �re-failure� rate of those who defaulted, then renegotiated their teaser rate loans, is above 50%. Yet all taxpayers have to pay the price for the bailouts.

To be sure, we are a far cry from communism. But we must keep our eyes open and not be blinded by the perceived �help� of money printed by the Fed. Debt is the origin, not the solution to the problems we face. The Declaration of Independence�s �life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness� may be difficult to achieve when drowned in debt; building sustainable wealth without the shackles of debt may be the more appropriate path. It�s not by mistake that the Founding Fathers be backed by a precious metal that cannot be inflated to give in to the temptation of the day.