Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal Same-Sex Benefits Would Cost Taxpayers $898 Million Over Next Decade
CNSNews.com ^ | December 22, 2009 | Fred Lucas

Posted on 12/22/2009 6:16:58 AM PST by Tigen

CNSNews.com) – Taxpayers will pay almost $900 million over the next 10 years to extend federal employee benefits to homosexual couples, according to an analysis of “domestic partners” legislation by the Congressional Budget Office. However, supporters of the bill say the costs will be offset in other areas.

President Barack Obama has voiced support for the measure. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved the measure last Wednesday, while the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee approved a measure last month.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohomosexualagenda; gaystapo; gomorrah; homobama; homosexualagenda; perverts; pricetag; sodom; sodomhusseinobama
Forced Sodom and Gomorrah
1 posted on 12/22/2009 6:16:59 AM PST by Tigen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tigen

another billion taxpayer dollars

for sodomy support

no wonder obama approves


2 posted on 12/22/2009 6:20:14 AM PST by silverleaf (More folks being invited to the White House for Holiday parties than are being sent to Afghanistan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

then they would have to pay for my live in girlfriend too??


3 posted on 12/22/2009 6:25:18 AM PST by Elle Bee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen
Upcoming government rationale...

Homo couples don't abort babies, so this will more than pay for itself in reduced abortion costs!

4 posted on 12/22/2009 6:31:25 AM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

However, supporters of the bill say the costs will be offset in other areas.


Yeah, like how?


5 posted on 12/22/2009 6:32:16 AM PST by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen
Just as I said yesterday...they are planning to convert jobs from private business to the public sector and unionize those folks, then they are going to expand benefits to "partners". So much for any cost savings they are trying to tout on their "insourcing" boondoggle. This is payback to the unions, pure and simple. Here is a link from the AFGE (FedGov union) on the bill that was recently introduced:

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009

The bill provides that a federal employee and his or her domestic partner be entitled to benefits available to a married federal employee and his or her spouse. Surprisingly, it was sponsored by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME). Lieberman is a Dem, so it is expected with him, but there is no excuse for Collins.

6 posted on 12/22/2009 6:33:02 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

It does not cost taxpayers. It costs SINGLE HETERO taxpayers who pay for all “family” benefits. If TOTAL benefits remain the same, then it comes out of the pockets of normal families and children for whom single people agreed to shoulder these subsidies. THAT is the secular objective argument againt gay “marriage” and it is irrefutable.


7 posted on 12/22/2009 6:47:46 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Lieberman is a Dem

Nope he was too conservative for Dems...they booted him

8 posted on 12/22/2009 6:48:53 AM PST by Ganndy (back to Lurking...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ganndy
Nope he was too conservative for Dems...they booted him

Lieberman failed the litmus test on only two issues, being pro-war in Iraq and pro Israel. He is a solid liberal in every other issue there is. As one Freeper here once noted (perhaps quoting someone else) Joe often very publicly wrestles with his conscience; I just wish he'd let his conscience win every once in a while

9 posted on 12/22/2009 7:14:18 AM PST by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ganndy

He’s way to the left of center, stands for the same principles as the Dems on matters such as abortion (100% NARAL rating) and caucuses with the Dems so there really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference.


10 posted on 12/22/2009 7:16:18 AM PST by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

So-called “Employee Benefits” in the workplace is discriminatory in many ways. Single people end up subsidizing health/dental for married people with kids and now the gays want single people to subsidize them.

The system should be revamped with each employee getting ONE unit of health/dental for ONE person as part of their compensation. Then if someone has 10 kids or a homosexual so-called “domestic partner” and is a burden on the system (more than the one single person), they would have to have more deducted from their pay to correspond to the added cost of their coverage.

This would be the fairest way to do it.


11 posted on 12/22/2009 9:09:44 AM PST by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
If TOTAL benefits remain the same, then it comes out of the pockets of normal families and children for whom single people agreed to shoulder these subsidies.

1) This single person doesn't remember agreeing to subsidize families of any kind. 2) Gays don't pay taxes? Did they agree at some point to subsidize only traditional arrangements? There are obviously sociological arguments in favor of subsidizing traditional families, but I'm not sure your argument holds water.

12 posted on 12/22/2009 9:12:55 AM PST by ivyleaguebrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tigen
Isn't this like giving health benefits to cigarette smokers and alcoholics for risky behavior? Where's the warning label?


13 posted on 12/22/2009 9:15:36 AM PST by Thirteen (You can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make it water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thirteen

From June 29, 2004:
..should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? Health care professionals are familiar with the medical challenges of homosexual men living the gay lifestyle. For you, the taxpayer, to be willing to pay government benefits for gay marriage or civil unions, you should consider what lifestyle your tax dollars will be supporting.....

In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. [14] Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons. [15]

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/PhrmGayMrg.htm

From July 7, 2007
... Of course, the promulgation of knowledge and data concerning the link between alternative sex and disease is hampered by the bullying tactics of the elite. Thus, only a few facts are known at all to some of the public (such as the results of a study in Scandinavia showing that men in same-sex marriages die 24 years earlier than their counterparts in the general population), and these facts aren’t mainstream, thanks to the media blackout on this issue and the muzzling of opponents under color of law. And that, in turn, is thanks to the activists.

...Note the remarkable parallels with the smoking craze: In both cases, the promoters of the respective dangerous habits had been or are withholding evidence that undoubtedly would have led people not to indulge or to quit. Today, public elementary and secondary schools are doing just that, and in addition, some are teaching, as part of “sex education,” methods for carrying out harmful sexual perversions...
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/XGayVsHsx.htm


14 posted on 12/22/2009 9:38:06 AM PST by massmike (...So this is what happens when OJ's jury elects the president....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Ahah! Just as I thought! It’s just another example in the long history of Democrat hypocrisy. Of course, studies have also shown that homosexuals are much more prone to spousal violence than normal people.


15 posted on 12/22/2009 10:00:13 AM PST by Thirteen (You can lead a horse to drink, but you can't make it water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tigen; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping


16 posted on 12/22/2009 10:27:00 AM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

Obambi will be the first one in line, then he can get married to Larry Sinclair all proper and stuff.


17 posted on 12/22/2009 11:28:40 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tigen

We are living in it my friend


18 posted on 12/22/2009 2:07:29 PM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlanGreenSpam
How about forgetting about imposing a "system" on employers and letting them offer whatever the hell they want to their employees, letting the labor market dictate efficiency, as well as giving free reign the employer's conscience and their right to foster a corporate culture in line with their values? (If they want to reward the family, the building block of a civilized society, let them.)

I know, we've come a long way from this "radical" ideal, but we can wish.

19 posted on 12/23/2009 4:30:05 AM PST by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

You’re absolutely right. I see I didn’t make that clear in my writing: I don’t want the gov’t enforcing my notion of health care fairness in corporation.

Rather, I was hoping companies and workers would realize that adding domestic homo partners to coverage plans costs the pool more, just as single employees now subsidize those with large families under health care.


20 posted on 12/23/2009 8:54:59 AM PST by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: massmike

"The collection of any taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. The only constitutional tax is the tax which ministers to public necessity. The property of the country belongs to the people of the country. Their title is absolute. They do not support any privileged class; they do not need to maintain great military forces; they ought not to be burdened with a great array of public employees. They are not required to make any contribution to Government expenditures except that which they voluntarily assess upon themselves through the action of their own representatives. Whenever taxes become burdensome a remedy can be applied by the people; but if they do not act for themselves, no one can be very successful in acting for them."

Calvin Coolidge, Inaugural address, March 4, 1925



“...every tax or rate, forcibly taken from an unwilling person, is immoral and oppressive.”

Auberon Herbert

21 posted on 12/28/2009 6:28:50 AM PST by Mikey (He that refuses to know and exert his rights, doesn't deserve them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tigen
A billion dollars of TAXPAYER money to throw to the faggot/dyke lobby, endorsing a perverted lifestyle and paying for their "fun"....

This is SYMPTOMATIC of the degradation of society, as dictated in The Communist Manifesto.

We have lost our way.....

22 posted on 01/01/2010 8:17:30 AM PST by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson