Google plans to pay gay employees more

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38037689/ns/business-us_business/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Wilton saidhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38037689/ns/business-us_business/


    Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent, the newspaper said, noting that the tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

    Hmmmm..... If Congress is able to insert all kinds of pork in bills that are unrelated to the actual title of the bill, why haven't the "party of the gays" (Democrats) simply removed this part of the tax code?

    It's easy.... just go in at 3am the day that the House [my underline] will vote for it, remove it, and, since nobody reads what they are voting for anyway, voila!

    Except there's this pesky thing called the US Senate, where procedural rules (antiquated in my view), allow minority Republicans to block nearly anything they want. You remember, the Party of NO.

    And Senate Republicans have signaled they will oppose anything pro-gay, from repeal of DOMA & DADT, to gay tax code reforms such as this. That leaves the Democratic Senate leadership to perform a balancing act, prioritizing those things they must accomplish to keep the country running, and to restore the economy ruined by Bush, within the practical limits of a limited legislative calendar. Digging in on issues the Republicans have promised to filibuster wastes time, and other issues also get killed because of a finite calendar. You fail to keep in mind that the goal of Republicans is to make Democrats fail, not for the US to win.

    But then you knew that, right? You were just testing us. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 4:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidNah... the same tricks are used in the Senate as well.... Put forth a 400 page amendment, bury it in there, the dopey Senators vote for it (along party lines of course) and there you have it.

    You conveniently forget to address the biggest trick of all, unique to the Senate that doesn't exist in the House, the only body you cited previously: the filibuster. So that you are incorrect to state that the tricks are the same for the 2 chambers. Now do talk about that, OK?

    (We'll leave aside for the moment the issue of Senatorial "holds" on Presidential appointments, their confirmations being a sole Constitutional function of the Senate. A custom that Republicans have used to an unprecedented degree to block a growing backlog of Obama Federal appointees, as another part of the Republican tactic to cripple Obama every way they can, and to make him fail)

    One of my favorite political cartoons that illustrates all of this perfectly:

    DCbroken.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
    Here's the best response to Wilton's topic:

    Cool! Right on Google!

    Not the usual two-weeks-out-in-the-sun stinky red herrings tossed in by SB.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 4:26 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhat I'm saying is that our elected representatives in both houses constantly add / remove stuff from legislation in the dead of night and nobody is any the wiser.

    If the Democrats truly cared about the gays and wanted to actually do something to help the gays, they would have removed the part of the tax law described below:

    Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent, the newspaper said, noting that the tax owed is based on the value of the partner’s coverage paid by the employer.

    What you are NOT saying is whether you support what Google and other corporations have done to compensate gays for the added costs due to disparities in the tax code that disadvantage us.

    Yes or no? What is your view on Google's policy?

    I have noted that pro-gay tax code legislative changes in Congress are not currently possible with unified Republican opposition. While you are claiming the fault lies with Democrats for not waving a magic wand that does not exist.

    But back on topic: do you approve or disapprove of what Google has done on behalf of its gay employees? And do you think Republicans should support legislation that would correct these inequalities in the US tax code, so that such remedies at the corporate level would be unnecessary? Because until Republicans will support it, nothing less than a super majority in the Senate by Democrats (60 Dems) will see it passed, and at present they don't have one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 5:24 PM GMT
    I don´t really get the impression the Democrats under Obama are actually PRO gay, they are just less militantly ANTI gay than the Republicans, though this is not a great achievement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 5:37 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidI don´t really get the impression the Democrats under Obama are actually PRO gay, they are just less militantly ANTI gay than the Republicans, though this is not a great achievement.

    That's a valid observation. I think some Democrats are indeed very pro-gay, while I think some are "closeted" pro-gay. That is, they'll not make a big show about it, but nevertheless will side with gay issues when they come up for a vote. They worry about facing anti-gay Republican opponents at their next reelection.

    And there are some Democrats in Congress who are anti-gay. That is unavoidable, either because it is their personal belief, or else because they perceive that is the majority view of the constituents who elected them.

    Yet I would still note that Republicans in Congress are almost ALL anti-gay. The few Democrats who might vote anti-gay do nothing to offset the reality of the Republicans who vote anti-gay in lock-step, as directed by their party leaders. This is the party that votes in unison on almost every issue, and anti-gay issues are among their favorite targets they vote against. Anti-gay is a major part of their party platform and political strategy since Karl Rove 10 years ago.

    Can southbeach or any others here dispute that? Please step forward and give your examples for us, that prove me wrong. And remember, a couple of renegades don't count. I'm referring to overall party policy here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2010 7:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Wilton saidYes or no? What is your view on Google's policy?

    Google can do what they like, so long as it doesn't violate any law.
    Wilton saidAnd do you think Republicans should support legislation that would correct these inequalities in the US tax code, so that such remedies at the corporate level would be unnecessary? Because until Republicans will support it, nothing less than a super majority in the Senate by Democrats (60 Dems) will see it passed, and at present they don't have one.

    A super majority of Democrats did not address this.. they had ample opportunity to do it, and they didn't.

    As for your proposed modification to the tax code... the code is peppered with so many rules favorable to one group or another that it's hard to keep track of it all. I would suggest scrapping the whole thing and put a flat tax in its place.

    Democrats did not have a clear super majority, their caucus relying upon 2 unreliable Independents. A flat tax might indeed be an answer, that I have considered. It has its own drawbacks, but not the issue here, I think, since we are talking about the tax code we already have.

    So back to my question, after your typical diversions. To quote myself from above:

    "Yes or no? What is your view on Google's policy?"

    "...do you approve or disapprove of what Google has done on behalf of its gay employees? And do you think Republicans should support legislation that would correct these inequalities in the US tax code, so that such remedies at the corporate level would be unnecessary?"

    A simple answer for once would be welcome.