logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Screw those who are essential and work?, The Trump shut-down.
Supposn
post Jan 10 2019, 08:48 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Screw those who are essential and work?? The Trump shut-down.

If the link provided at the end of this post is correct:
Those furloughed federal employees considered as not essential and are not currently working for the federal government, can tide themselves over by gainfully working full-time if they can find such opportunities. They can also work part-time and/or qualify for unemployment benefits.

Those federal employees considered essential and required to continue working without pay, are entitled to work part-time if they can find work that doesn't conflict with their federal work schedule, but they are not entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

In most if not all cases when federal employees MAY receive back-pay, the state will legally recover any unemployment benefits they paid out for the back-paid period.

In summary, there's no financial remedy for federal employees that actually do work for our federal government during Trump's shut-down.
Does this seem logical to anyone except President Donald Trump?

Refer to:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...hp_minor_pos19

Many furloughed federal employees can receive unemployment while on temporary leave of absence, but not all. Federal employees who are expected to report to work, even without pay, do not qualify for unemployment benefits. Federal workers should be wary. In most states, as well as D.C., if these workers collect unemployment benefits and then receive retroactive pay, they’ll be required to repay the government.

Respectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 22)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 20 2019, 03:02 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,350
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 18 2019, 08:51 PM) *
You know who didin't care and still doesn't?


I was being facetious with the bleeding hearts. **
For years the military has been outsourcing to contractors. There are many, many contractors that have replaced active duty military.
The Airforce went to something called "TFI". The total force initiative, which means Reservists are taking a lot of jobs of active duty.
We have a friend who is retiring from the Reserves (a TR) now and he found he cannot qualify for disability in spite of the fact his back is very damaged from flying fighter jets into his fifties.
So when you claim the military in general is "protected" from the impact of shutdowns (not to mention the sequestration/continuing resolution nonsense), you are mistaken.

Reason the switch has been made (to reserves and contractors): Scarce resources.
It's not just retirement benefits (they can incentivize people to leave before retirement, or just summarily RIF them like they've been doing), it's all the other personal welfare benefits that come with active duty service.
This last part is the problem with illegal aliens coming to our shores. Consider the active duty is about 1.3 million people. Then consider that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are showing up every year. For some perspective, the media considered it a "victory" that the year before last we "only" had about half the number of illegals in a single year as the entire number active duty military.

**Folks who support illegal aliens over American citizens are actually pawns of big business and the 2% in their goal to have below-market wage workers… while they fret the Republicans might give them a tax break or reduced regulations to encourage expansion and hire more Americans.

I represent the demographic that cares about long-term border security over short-term unhappiness of government workers.
I support longterm benefit for America and Americans (which includes those government workers...including the very small portion of government workers impacted by the "shutdown").

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 20 2019, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Yesterday, 11:03 AM
Post #22


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,385
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Let's see, government partial shutdown didn't work. How's about an end-run around Congress? Didn't work for Iran-Contra, but this time maybe? Seems hardly anyone's buying the emergency shtick.

Need some new ideas here! How can a POTUS get his . . . how can a POTUS work the . . . is there any way a president can subvert the Constitution without anyone noticing?

Ah, nope. Looks like you're all alone, Mr. President.

If it's any consolation, nobody's buying the fake news on social media any longer either. It's as if the public woke up or something. See what happens when you hire writers on the cheap? GIGO! Just a bunch of grammar and spelling challenged hacks with flimsy logic unfit to use even as toilet paper.

It's pronounced az-wee'-pea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Yesterday, 03:22 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,833
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs P)
I was being facetious with the bleeding hearts. **
For years the military has been outsourcing to contractors. There are many, many contractors that have replaced active duty military.
The Airforce went to something called "TFI". The total force initiative, which means Reservists are taking a lot of jobs of active duty.
We have a friend who is retiring from the Reserves (a TR) now and he found he cannot qualify for disability in spite of the fact his back is very damaged from flying fighter jets into his fifties.
So when you claim the military in general is "protected" from the impact of shutdowns (not to mention the sequestration/continuing resolution nonsense), you are mistaken.


No, I'm not mistaken, which is why you keep talking about... these reservists, or those retirees, or these reservists trying to fill in active duty positions. You know what you aren't talking about? Active Duty military. You know why you aren't talking about Active Duty military? Because they were getting paid. They didn't get furloughed in 2013 or 2018.

QUOTE
Will Military Members Get Paid?
Update: The government has passed some, but not all, spending bills for the government shutdown that began in late 2018 and extended through early 2019. The Department of Defense is funded through September 30, 2019. This means all military members, military retirees, military annuitants (survivor benefit recipients), and DoD civilian employees that fall under the Department of Defense will receive their regular paychecks through that date.

However, other members of the Uniformed Services that do not fall under the DoD are not funded under the current government spending bills. This includes the following organizations:
  • The US Coast Guard (USCG), which falls under the Department of Homeland Security,
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which falls under the United States Department of Commerce, and
  • The Commissioned Corps of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services concerned with public health.
Your personal anecdotes aside, generally, the military got paid and was protected. You like myself i'm sure have plenty of military contacts. Instead of thinking of the people you know that didn't get paid, think about the people you knew that are in the military, or were in the military at the time of the furlough, that WERE getting paid. I bet there are a lot more which WERE getting paychecks, than the ones that weren't.

QUOTE
This last part is the problem with illegal aliens coming to our shores. Consider the active duty is about 1.3 million people. Then consider that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are showing up every year. For some perspective, the media considered it a "victory" that the year before last we "only" had about half the number of illegals in a single year as the entire number active duty military.
Problems i have with this statement:

1. the media... considered it a victory? OK. Sure.

2. Illegal immigrants leave, every year!!

3. How is what you doing giving a good perspective. Its a perspective, but not one i would use. Here use this Pew Research to aid you getting better perspective. among things to note... illegal Chinese are more prevalent than Hispanics since 2010. Also there are about 10 million immigrants here illegally. Instead of saying OMG lets compare that to out AD military force (still not sure why you think that was a good idea) how about we compare that to our population size. That way you can get a general percentage of just how many people are here illegally.

QUOTE
**Folks who support illegal aliens over American citizens are actually pawns of big business and the 2% in their goal to have below-market wage workers… while they fret the Republicans might give them a tax break or reduced regulations to encourage expansion and hire more Americans.
What isthis reverse psychology or something?!?! w00t.gif I don't know anyone that fits this characterization. I'll say again ITS THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE HIRING THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. Why aren't conservatives putting in the same effort, not the politicians, the constituency, in locking up business men and CEOs. "Oh there are no laws" No sh... so advocate to MAKE laws!! Just like conservatives advocate to make laws to lock up human beings for having or giving abortions. In fact, why would you put the same effort, I'm wrong to suggest that. If Conservative constituency really wants to stop illegal immigration from our southern border and they are smart enough to understand the immigration is due to businesses' hiring practices, then you should be putting MORE energy is making laws to punish businesses and their human leaders that do this. Instead of another thousand ICE Agents, you need another thousand AUDITORS. Most of the left is not FOR illegal immigration, we just don't care, maybe because we have a better perspective of the threat.

QUOTE
I represent the demographic that cares about long-term border security over short-term unhappiness of government workers.
I support longterm benefit for America and Americans (which includes those government workers...including the very small portion of government workers impacted by the "shutdown").
Niiiiiiiiiice!!!! Can America have benefits without it benefitting Americans?!?! Talk about "things that make you go hmmmm"! Anyways, i know you believe this Mrs P. Its a psychology issue. And i don't mean that in a derogatory sense, obviously we all have our own psychology. We can go down the lists of debates where me and you bump heads and see... you often chalk up your political views to security. Which tells me your psychology see a lot of threats. This is what leads many human to more conservative politics. Personal stories that you know only exasperates that feeling that there are threat you must stand against. Someone who feels insecure, wants more security. Makes sense. But psychology aside, what is the threat, actually. Will the wall eliminate the threat? If the wall will lessen the threat, how so and how much? Is the wall just a "blanket". Something that make conservative feel more secure against a threat grossly exaggerated by their own fears?

This is me being honest, from a leftist viewpoint, i think it is a blanket. Its not that i don't think that conservatives see a threat. They are easily manipulated to see threats. I do think you guys see threats, but its not based on any science, polls, or research. What Trump start off saying in 2015 spoke a "truth" resonating to many with a conservative ear and psychology. Mexico was sending its worst human beings into America. And conservatives are going to protect us from that threat, even if it causes short term pain to their fellow Americans. But just like any witch hunt, conservatives, the protector from the threat, becomes worst than the threat itself. Illegal immigrants, rape, murder, steal, etc, but no more than Americans. The threat isn't great, the solution to the miniscule threat isn't great, but the conservative energy poured into the horrible solutions for such a small threat, is great. And as i noted several times before, that energy is directed at the impoverished and weak, rather than the wealthy and strong that's is the ROOT of the threat.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 22nd, 2019 - 11:16 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.