Comments on: Early Morning Swim: Rachel Breaks Story about Obama Extending Benefits to Same Sex Partners

By: Mile23

Mile23 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:43:50 +0000

It’s not just the DOMA statement…. The Obamanoids want you to be distracted from the war funding bill, as well.

Who’s up for YET ANOTHER ROUND of ‘new, better Democrats?’

By: JoeBuck

JoeBuck — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:09:46 +0000

DOMA makes it illegal for Obama to extend health care to same-sex partners of federal workers. There are some other benefits that he could extend.

By: wigwam

wigwam — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:30:16 +0000

The LAT off-leads, and the NYT fronts, word that Obama will extend benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

Obama: “Too bad, so sad about DOMA and DADT, but I have my center-right base to think about. So, here’s a bone. Now stop barking.”

By: brendanscalling

brendanscalling — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:53:09 +0000

sorry, but that story from slate makes me see red.

if i were gay, I would be even more pissed than I am as a straight guy. joe at americanblog has it right:

at 5:54 PM, Obama will make what’s supposed to be the big announcement about providing benefits to the partners of federal employees. Now, we all know that’s not really a big announcement, but it’s a one small step in the right direction. It might have been a big deal back in 1996 — during Rahm’s first term. But, the White House is really playing it up in order to quell the furor over DOMA. And, sounds like the brain trust really just slapped this one together. When most people hear the term “benefits,” health care comes to mind. That’s not part of the package. DOMA, which Obama wants to repeal but is defending in the Courts, prevents health benefits for partners.,

So no, it’s way too little, especially after you called gay people a bunch of pedophiles and dogfuckers.

why is it so hard for these people to just do the right thing?

By: rxbusa

rxbusa — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:42:33 +0000

Here’s an article that mentions it, but not the one I originally read which was more definitive about not taxing up to a certain limit.

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:39:34 +0000

go Dawgs!~

By: CTuttle

CTuttle — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:29:58 +0000

Thanx for the synopsis…! Btw, EW has an excellent new post up…

Dennis Blair’s Spokesperson: The Domestic Surveillance Program Violates the Fourth Amendment

By: rxbusa

rxbusa — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:24:49 +0000

I thought it was health insurance benefits over a certain limit (like >$12K per year) that would be taxed, not all. Can’t remember where I read it, though.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:21:47 +0000

I’m waiting for more info on Obama’s finacial reregulation package. One thing I disagree with is making the FRB the overseer of systemic risk. All regulation at the FRB is a second class citizen. All their interested in is making monetary policy, so as a first pass, I’d take all regulatory authority away from them, not give them more stuff they won’t bother doing. Not to mention the fact that the FRB is entirely opaque. (May be what’s behind the move to give it such authority.)

The part you refer to falls under the creation of another regulatory authority to look after consumers of credit. At first blush, it seems like a good idea, but need more details to see whether it’s lip service or something substantive.

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:16:02 +0000

LOL. An opportunity lost. I’m happy you didn’t chop your finger by mistake over anger with the lie.