# Breaking: Obama Tells Companies They Can't Fire Anyone Unless IRS Gives Them Approval



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges. 

This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do. 



> *(1) Limited Workforce Size.* The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.
> 
> (2) *Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service.*  During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.



Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2014-03082.pdf pp. 123-25

I tell you now: this is a pure act of desperation on the Obama Administration's part. Government has no right micromanaging the affairs of private businesses. So, is the Government telling you how to run your business?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

Hello? Is this thing on? Business owners? Liberals?


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 11, 2014)

Is this insane or what? Obama has struck again with his pen extending the delay to the Obamacare employer mandate. What has been revealed is alarming. Obama has made it where companies  MUST get "permission" to fire someone from the IRS! This should concern people greatly.

 Here's the new rule:

 To be eligible for the additional delay, the Obama administration says an employer *&#8220;may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees&#8221;* unless it can justify those reductions to the Internal Revenue Service.


Companies Must Justify Their Workforce Decisions Under Obama?s Latest Rewrite | CNS News


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 11, 2014)

.

No way.  I'd need to see proof of this.

.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2014)

Holy fuck.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> No way.  I'd need to see proof of this.
> 
> .



Don't hold your breath. Look who the OP is and what his "source" is. That's two strikes right off the bat.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices. 

Where do you guys get this shit?


On the other hand, if a company can prove that downsizing is necessary, i. e., that laying off employees was unavoidable, then there would be no fine. If a company remained compliant and offered insurance despite laying off workers, the IRS would not even need to be notified.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Well prove him wrong then sparky!! sounds like it would be simple to do!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I just did pops.


----------



## Truthmatters (Feb 11, 2014)

just more right wing fucking lies


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 11, 2014)

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up.  This is part of the democrat war on work.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.
> 
> Where do you guys get this shit?



Unfortunately for Obama, the law isn't written that way.  Obama is making the law himself, despite the fact that the Constitution doesn't give him such authority.

It's just one more example of Obama wiping his ass on the Constitution.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up.  This is part of the democrat war on work.



No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.


----------



## bripat9643 (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up.  This is part of the democrat war on work.
> ...



If they don't make a profit, they go out of business, numskull.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 11, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> No way.  I'd need to see proof of this.
> 
> .



Yes, WAY!


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.
> ...



????

Sounds like you are offering this up without any due diligence. 

Obama does not "make laws himself" he is part of the process to get bills passed into law. 

I know that's not what people think, but I saw it on TV when I was a kid. 

Cool stuff.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Hardly!! bashing a source??!!! with nothing to prove your point. Yep you nailed him!!


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.


There must be more to it than that. Otherwise they could simply invest in ads, equipment or supplies to avoid the penalty. Or maybe they didn't think of that?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

Katzndogz said:


> If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up.  This is part of the democrat war on work.



Remember when you acted like Obamacare caused your shitty 1 person business to close down. Yeah, I got a good laugh out of that too.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 11, 2014)

The Democratic war on *capitalism.* Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...





You show on paper that you can't afford to keep people on - it's called a budget. You base it on accounts receivable verses accounts payable.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

bripat9643 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



LOL. Look who has no clue what they're talking about. I guess Twitter and Amazon are both doomed and out of business.


----------



## jknowgood (Feb 11, 2014)

Another laser like decision on the economy made by obama. This is really going to help unemployment.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



The source needs no rebuttal. The source itself is it's own rebuttal.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

AquaAthena said:


> The Democratic war on *capitalism.* Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.



Weird, Obama hates Capitalism but the DOW has reached all time highs in the past year and corporate profits are reaching all time highs. Those companies must really be hurting with all that money they have since Obama hates capitalism. 

It's almost as if you people don't actually look at reality before making your asinine statements.


----------



## depotoo (Feb 11, 2014)

Yeah, I heard it, too.  Bloomberg has a little about it-
Employers with fewer than 100 workers will have to certify to the government that they haven&#8217;t fired workers to get under the threshold and qualify for the delay until 2016.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Dismissing a  source out of hand is a bogus way of making your case. Who cares what the source is; It's either correct or it isn't. If the source is wrong - show us why. 

We can say that any source is biased and should not be taken seriously. That is just a cheap way to avoid any meaningful discussion on the matter.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Yes but what if you need to do a quick firing? How long do you think it will take the IRS to go through the red tape before it authorizes it's decision to approve or disapprove your request?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



If indeed the IRS is going to act, it will not be until tax time. They aren't a preemptive police force.


----------



## depotoo (Feb 11, 2014)

My question. Is this not interferring with a companies ability to do business?  With the recent revelations of Irs interferring with groups someone  has decided they don't like, I can just imagine the harassment they will give companies (owners) they also don't care for.  There are no rules of what they will consider reasonable reduction in hours or workforce.  It will be subjective.


----------



## depotoo (Feb 11, 2014)

Small Businesses Get Further Delay for Obamacare Coverage - Bloomberg

if you click on rule within that article it will give you the 227 page pdf


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > chikenwing said:
> ...



Not every source deserves respect. This is one of them.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > The Democratic war on *capitalism.* Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.
> ...



See this is whats a hoot with people like this,one day its wall street is just so good what an example,but the day befor it was evil

You people are a joke.


----------



## chikenwing (Feb 11, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Based on what your opinion??

Ya that's a line drive over the right field fence

Prove its wrong!


----------



## depotoo (Feb 11, 2014)

Mods when this was moved whybwas a shadow not left in the other forum, showing it was moved.  This is a current event. Also, makes me question if someone didn't want this last fiasco readily seen.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



I've had people tell me that I couldn't use the Washington Times. I had to finally ask the mods to close the thread because it got completely derailed.

Left wingers are never going to believe some right leaning news source and vice-verca.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

depotoo said:


> Mods when this was.......




Always ask stuff like this via a PM. The Mods will love you fot it and you won't get a va-ca.


----------



## Jroc (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Obama must of missed that program because he ignores and amends laws at will. "Constitutional law professor"  What a joke that is


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Feb 11, 2014)

Here is another link:

Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News

 the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple.* Firms will be required to certify to the IRS  under penalty of perjury  that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.* You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so...

[That's the good thing about being president. I can do whatever I want.  President Obama joking about getting a restricted-access tour of Thomas Jeffersons Monticello.]


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 11, 2014)

Good news bad news. If this helps prove the IRS relations with the executive is uncheckable and unconstitutional, that system could go down together with ACA.

Let's replace both, with something taxpayers from all parties will welcome.

If party members only have to pay taxes to their own parties, unless there is 100% agreement what to fund on the federal level, this will reduce federal taxes and govt. And shift the majority of programs to where people feel directly represented anyway, by their own parties. Everyone will get what they want, without arguing or conflict. Automatic by payment and representation by party and you have it.

that would solve conficts of interest between parties and IRS and federal health care policies. just separate to each his own and make everyone happy funding their own beliefs.



TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sittubg President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 11, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > AquaAthena said:
> ...



I never touted big corporations as being "good". I just pointed out that they are turning record profits, which shoots down that whole "Obama hates capitalism" ridiculousness. Which part confuses you?


----------



## depotoo (Feb 11, 2014)

I posted a lihk to bloombergs article as well as where to find the actual pdf that is tthe rule can be found in a prior post in this thread.  One must be willing to go through 227 pages though.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Feb 11, 2014)

I know, it sounds like something out of George Orwell's "1984", or maybe out of an Ayn Rand book.

But it's there in black and white.

Obama has once again changed the Obamacare law without benefit of any vote of Congress, moving the Employer mandate back yet another year to 2016. And he's also added something never before seen in the history of the United States: Employers who want to lay off or fire workers, must first justify to the IRS that he has "bona fide" reasons for doing so.

Even in Ayn Rand's wildest fancies, the governments in her novels never did this until just before the total collapse of the country.

And her novels were fiction. But in the United States under Barack Obama, they are now fact.

You voted for it, America. Or at least, you voted for Obama, and trusted him.

And voting his party out of Congress this November, will no longer help. He isn't waiting for Congress to send bills to his desk. He has a pen, and a phone. And he seems to feel he needs nothing else.

From the IRS website, hot off the presses:



> Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act
> 
> 34. Is additional transition relief available for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents)?
> 
> ...


 
Yep. That just started this last Sunday. With no warning or notification. And it's in effect NOW.

Admittedly, I'm getting old, and my copy of the Constitution is sort of old and tattered, and can be hard to read at times.

Can someone point out to me where it says that the Fed govt has the power to forbid employers to lay off people or fire them?  

After decades of jeering, screeching, denigration, and insults from our brethern of the southpaw persuasion... it turns out that Ayn Rand was right.

Who knew that Barack Obama was one of her most faithful readers?

Just one thing, Barry: Her book was meant to be a warning, not a how-to manual.


----------



## HelenaHandbag (Feb 11, 2014)

How does he plan on enforcing this edict?


----------



## Little-Acorn (Feb 11, 2014)

HelenaHandbag said:


> How does he plan on enforcing this edict?



All in good time, my pretty, all in good time.

(He's making this stuff up as he goes.)


----------



## Little-Acorn (Feb 11, 2014)

Of course, the way he has written this new edict, it's only for employers of a certain size, and for only a certain period of time.

What ar the chances that, once Americans are used to government having this new power in a limited way, the next steps will be to broaden its reach just a little? Maybe on Dec. 30, 2014, change the ending date by just a few numbers? Won't be any big deal, just ask him.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2014)

You are misreading the FAQ.  Not surprised.

The FAQ outlines the parameters which define those employers who get financial relief from the employer mandates during the transition period.

You don't have to justify to the IRS why you fired someone.  You can fire them.  But doing so may put you outside the defined parameters for receiving financial relief from the mandate.

Simple.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2014)

Let's say I tell you that I will give ten dollars to every employer who has 50 employees after January 1.  It so happens you are an employer who has exactly 50 employees.

I then explain to you that if you fire any employees between now and January 1, you won't get the ten bucks.

That is not telling  you that you have to explain to me why you fired that person.  It is just telling you that if you fall outside the parameters I have defined, you don't get the ten bucks.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm more upset with the way Obama keeps delaying, changing and exempting people from Obamacare.    His disregard for law is the problem.    He recently stated that, as president, he can do anything he wants.   For a guy who is supposed to be so smart, he should know that is not how it works in this country, but maybe he has his position confused with some of his idols, like Castro.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> You are misreading the FAQ.  Not surprised.
> 
> The FAQ outlines the parameters which define those employers who get financial relief from the employer mandates during the transition period.
> 
> ...



Um, yeah.  That's what the op said.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



I hear this a lot from people who don't like Obama - can you site an instance where Obama has circumvented the law, amended a law inappropriately or flat out ignored it? The authorities would really be interested if that was the case.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Let's say I tell you that I will give ten dollars to every employer who has 50 employees after January 1.  It so happens you are an employer who has exactly 50 employees.
> 
> I then explain to you that if you fire any employees between now and January 1, you won't get the ten bucks.
> 
> That is not telling  you that you have to explain to me why you fired that person.  It is just telling you that if you fall outside the parameters I have defined, you don't get the ten bucks.



The bigger issue is the rewriting of the original law, waivers, exemptions for certain groups, extended delays, changes in the law....all without congress consent.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> You don't have to justify to the IRS why you fired someone.


Umm, in fact, that's exactly what you have to do. Read the link to the IRS stie.




> You can fire them.


Well, that's mighty white of you to allow me to do that, massuh. To what do I owe this benificent permission?



> But doing so may put you outside the defined parameters for receiving financial relief from the mandate.



TRANSLATION: "Nice business ya got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it, ya know? Hey, if ya run it the way **I** want, maybe we won't empty out the till on ya...."


----------



## driveby (Feb 11, 2014)

Government bureaucrats, who know nothing about business,  telling businesses how many people they have to keep employed. No way that can be a disaster! ......


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

It doesn't decree that employers can't fire people.

It decrees that theyre disqualified from a healthcare specific subsidy if they fire due to the healthcare law. 

Two totally different ideas. wow.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 11, 2014)

driveby said:


> Government bureaucrats, who know nothing about business,  telling businesses how many people they have to keep employed. No way that can be a disaster! ......



They do it all day, every day. 

That's why you need to have a licence to do plumbing or a permit to dramatically change a structure. 

The Government has a say in just about anything you can imagine. 

As a Class A truck driver, I had jump through all kinds of hoops to work - including getting a physical medical exam, peeing in a cup every time I got hurt, keeping a daily log of how much I drove including all my breaks and a bunch of other fascinating crap.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Feb 11, 2014)

It doesn't say you can't fire people.
Buuuuuut - holy cow is this a slippery slope.
Who decides if a company let people go to get the subsidy or for legitimate reasons? or hasn't hired people to avoid losing the subsidy??

  I


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 11, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> It doesn't say you can't fire people.
> Buuuuuut - holy cow is this a slippery slope.
> Who decides if a company let people go to get the subsidy or for legitimate reasons? or hasn't hired people to avoid losing the subsidy??
> 
> I



Yup and you know how the I.R.S is yoi are guilty until pr proven innocent.


----------



## paperview (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Let's say I tell you that I will give ten dollars to every employer who has 50 employees after January 1.  It so happens you are an employer who has exactly 50 employees.
> 
> I then explain to you that if you fire any employees between now and January 1, you won't get the ten bucks.
> 
> That is not telling  you that you have to explain to me why you fired that person.  It is just telling you that if you fall outside the parameters I have defined, you don't get the ten bucks.


So simple, even a caveman could get it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

There is another OP about this, mine to be more specific:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...re-anyone-unless-irs-gives-them-approval.html


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2014)

R.D. said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > You are misreading the FAQ.  Not surprised.
> ...


No, that is not what the OP said.  The OP said you have to get permission from the IRS to fire someone, and that is patently false.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> It doesn't decree that employers can't fire people.
> 
> It decrees that theyre disqualified from a healthcare specific subsidy if they fire due to the healthcare law.
> 
> Two totally different ideas. wow.



and how does one determine why one fired someone?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.
> 
> Where do you guys get this shit?
> 
> ...



A business has a right to profit under this law, Cabbie. You cannot sit there and justify government overreach this way. It is a blatant edict which forbids businesses from laying off workers as they deem fit to maintain their profit margin. Where are the limits?


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



Under obamacare... It's right in the title.   You're trying way to hard to twist the facts no one disputes to try defend this mess. 

If you agree with it, just agree with it.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



And yet, you haven't proven to the contrary.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000....you are so wrapped up in discrediting the OP, you have completely ignored the crux of the complaint.

So are you OK with it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 11, 2014)

I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 11, 2014)

g5000 said:


> Let's say I tell you that I will give ten dollars to every employer who has 50 employees after January 1.  It so happens you are an employer who has exactly 50 employees.
> 
> I then explain to you that if you fire any employees between now and January 1, you won't get the ten bucks.
> 
> That is not telling  you that you have to explain to me why you fired that person.  It is just telling you that if you fall outside the parameters I have defined, you don't get the ten bucks.



Let's try this again, shall we?

I know you're a misogynist and don't care much for women anchors from Fox News, but Megyn Kelly put it very aptly:



> what the government is telling employers is that you will not fire a single person. You will not lay off a single person &#8211; if you want to take advantage of our gift. And you have to certify it under penalty of perjury to the IRS that you [sic] didn&#8217;t do that..



It's like saying "We're giving you a gift, but you must accept it whether you want it or not, and you must meet these requirements under the law so we can force this gift on you."


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

bear513 said:


> I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.



Just to clarify...

No one needs a dam reason to fire anyone.

But in RtW states, the employer does not need to inform the employee why they were fired.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

I agree with this stipulation - 

Tax breaks / subsidies have always come with pre-qualifications. This is following precedent & protocol.


----------



## OriginalShroom (Feb 11, 2014)

The Obama power grab, supported by the Democrats, is simply amazing...  Especially considering their positions during the previous Presidency when they were proclaiming President Bush as being the "Unilateral President".


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> I agree with this stipulation -
> 
> Tax breaks / subsidies have always come with pre-qualifications. This is following precedent & protocol.



true...

but in this case, it is a subsidy that is offered to offset an increase in costs that are a result of government mandates...

So to set stipulations to get that subsidy seems a bit strange..

simple analogy..

I will take 20 dollars from you but do not worry, I will give it right back to you....

Unless you don't do as I say.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

So then correct me if I am wrong about this....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Not really - it's more like there's a new set of laws in town - like them or not - but we do offer ways to mitigate the costs involved so long as you haven't already mitigated them yourselves by downsizing 


cuz what's the need, after that we're incentivizing nothingness.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> So then correct me if I am wrong about this....
> 
> I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...
> 
> ...



No, the subsidy is new.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > So then correct me if I am wrong about this....
> ...



Missed my point...

10 years from now.....

I have 50 employees....but business has turned for the worse...

So I lay off 5 employees in an effort to keep my company afloat and survive these hard times....

The government will turn around and make things even tougher by taking away subsidies I was getting


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



The subsidies are to offset the increased healthcare costs, assuming you had them and weren't fully insuring before - - - - - 

So if you get rid of the healthcare (which is where you'd really save by putting your force to under 50), then why in the fuck would you maintain a healthcare subsidy? 

Like, I really want to know....


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Because my goal for laying off 5 people is not to avoid the healthcare costs. I will still offer my employees healthcare as I was doing.

Pay attention GT...it is a valid question...

If you take away my subsidy you may prompt me to HAVE to eliminate healthcare for my employees...even though it is not my attention.

Does that sound counterproductive to you?

It does to me.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how this will collide with right to work states laws. .. they don't need a damn reason to fire some one.
> ...



Interesting,  I wonder if the IRS would release that information to the employee?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



You obviously lack logic here. 

If you fire them to get to under 50 yet KEEP THE REMAINING EMPLOYEES' HEALTHCARE, then you obviously didn't reduce your workforce to under 50 in order to get rid of the mandate to provide healthcare and you KEEP THE SUBSIDY. 

Jeesus christ


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

It's not even ambiguous, it's _RIGHT THERE._ nOT EVEN BARELY IN LEGAL SPEAK.


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


You're injecting motive to support your pov.  You're also getting rude.  Why?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

R.D. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



I correctly interpreted the stipulation for the subsidy. 

Crying over spilled milk isn't really fitting, especially when the healthcare law sucks as it is enough already.


----------



## paperview (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


*"the special transition relief applies if the employer certifies that it  (i) reasonably expects to employ and actually employs fewer than 100  full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days  during 2015; and

 (ii) reasonably expects to meet and actually meets the  standards relating to maintenance of workforce and aggregate hours of  service and of previously offered health coverage, as measured from the  date the employer is first in existence."*

There's a lot to read there...did you see it?



> (3)  *Maintenance of Previously Offered Health Coverage. *  During the period beginning on Feb. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2015  (or, for employers with non-calendar-year plans, ending on the last day  of the 2015 plan year) the employer does not eliminate or materially  reduce the health coverage, if any, it offered as of Feb. 9, 2014. An  employer will not be treated as eliminating or materially reducing  health coverage if (i) it continues to offer each employee who is  eligible for coverage an employer contribution toward the cost of  employee-only coverage that either (A) is at least 95 percent of the  dollar amount of the contribution toward such coverage that the employer  was offering on Feb. 9, 2014, or (B) is at least the same percentage of  the cost of coverage that the employer was offering to contribute  toward coverage on Feb. 9, 2014; (ii) in the event of a change in  benefits under the employee-only coverage offered, that coverage  provides minimum value after the change; and (iii) it does not alter the  terms of its group health plans to narrow or reduce the class or  classes of employees (or the employees dependents) to whom coverage  under those plans was offered on  Feb. 9, 2014.
> 
> *35. Is the transition relief for employers with at least 50 but  fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents)  available to newly formed employers?  If so, how does a new employer  know whether it qualifies for the relief?*
> Yes, the relief is available to new employers (that is, employers that are not in existence on any business day in 2014).
> ...


Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Stop being arrogant and engage in a debate like an adult.

Exactly my point......

But if you read it, it appears that you still need to be approved by the IRS as eligible for the subsidy.....

And we all know how long that can take.

So my question is...who decides and what criteria are used.

All you need is one "by the book" incompetent geek to stamp "denied" and now you must go through all the red tape and legal costs to get back on track.

And most business owners will say "fuck it".

Like when I owned my companies....

I would get field audited by immigration......and my records were sound...

Yet....once every 3 or 4 audits, I would have one attitudinal auditor who would claim there were issues....and next thing I know I am spending thousands of dollars on an attorney to straighten it out for me.

Don't ignore it GT...it is reality....Government workers can be as incompetent as those Burger King people that give you a cheeseburger when you ordered chicken fingers.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue. 

It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



and so did I GT....

However, I am experienced in business ownership enough to know how issues can arise even if you are not at fault at anything.

And as for your approach......why so arrogant and rude?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Who decides?

Are you fucking serious, telling ME to be the adult, when your questions are ANSWERED already by the Law as it exists and you're either playing dumb, or just are? 

That's on me, that's my shoulders? 

GTFOH

I apologize that I know how to read and interpret a bit better than you do, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question about dropping to under 50, keeping coverage for employees, and losing the subsidy. 

You don't lose it dimwit, you're still providing the coverage.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.
> 
> It's poetic, the axe to grind of partisan spite never dulls.



one who anticipates issues is more likely to avoid them GT.

Nowhere is this a partisan issue.

A business owner can be left or right....an IRS employee will not know that business owners ideology.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > R.D. said:
> ...



You deserve in arrogant and rude because you don't question these things in good faith - 

As evidenced by the answers being so clear and unambiguous yet you still asking the question as though you're not trying to shed more negative light to a political end. 

You are transparent. Told ya from day one. It's distasteful. 

Respect is earned, not granted unabashed. I require honest people in good faith in order to grant it.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



wow. You are one angry man GT.

Never mind. Sorry to bother you.

FYI....my question is valid and my concern is legitimate.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > The answers don't get sought before the complaints ensue.
> ...



A Business owner who doesn't understand this subsidy doesn't belong owning a business.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

paperview said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Thanks PPV...

But as you can see, there is plenty there for an auditor to misinterpret.

I can see this becoming counterproductive in the long run.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



it is not the business owner who is the issue.

It is the IRS employee who may be the issue.

My point all along GT.

I knew what I needed to do to meet ALL 1-9 criteria.

The field auditors, unfortunately, did not.

And it cost me money and time.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.



Yet the reason found as to why there was the IRS issue with conservative groups was "incompetence"......

Auditors as it pertains to financial audits are highly educated and highly trained...I agree.

Auditors for other areas, such as I-9 and unemployment are not highly educated. They are trained, yes, but a higher level of education is not required.

Now....what makes you think auditors as it pertains to meeting healthcare requirements are going to be any different?

it was a highly educated group that wrote the ACA....yet you see it as a dud.....so what makes you think they know who to use to implement it?

Get off your high horse....come back to earth....and realize that anytime the government mandates something, it opens the door to incompetance...at the cost of the individual.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.
> ...



The Government is issuing a subsidy with attachments. That doesn't cost a business, but only benefits it. 

The PPACA a separate issue entirely


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Platitudes budge the lazy.

Which is a platitude.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Yes....a subsidy to offset the increase in cost to the employer due to an increase in the cost of policies due to the dynamics of the ACA.

And some guy with a bad attitude will decide if you, a business owner,. will need to spend time and money to rectify an issue if you go below the identified number of employees.

As I experienced with I-9 and unemployment in NYC.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



If there's a subsidy to encourage a specific outcome, it most certainly should be audited.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I agree.

Thus why I am against the subsidy all together.

The law was poorly written and if you notice, to compensate for its downfalls, there are exemptions, subsidies, audits and more government involvement in the private sector.

You see, you think my aversion to the ACA is partisan. It is not. It is ideological. I have dealt with the government as a business owner. I have never intentionally broken the law and yet, as a business owner, I have found myself defending myself many times...and always walked away with thousands of dollars less in my pocket...but a nice letter of apology from NYS and/or NYC.

Of course...no financial restitution for THEIR errors.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

No, I think you're a partisan for a whole host of other reasons that aren't tried on the basis of ppaca. 

That aside - I'm sure for every thousand dollars less in your pocket, and this is addressing your cynicism with likely reality - there were thousands of dollars in savings via subsidies, write offs, etc.

Run of the mill credits and deductions need oversight you know. 

TINSTAFL and all. 



And how do I know it's not all that much debilitating? Oh, I don't know..... except for the fact that US GDP is 99% of the time not recessive. Albeit, that doesn't address every micro situation in which yea, there's likely a fuck ton of bad regulation, but that doesn't equate to a platitude about the Government, a platitude about regulation in General, or a platitude about the IRS. There's where irrational partisan thought clouds pragmatism. It's where independents part ways with R's, D's, C's and L's.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> No, I think you're a partisan for a whole host of other reasons that aren't tried on the basis of ppaca.
> 
> That aside - I'm sure for every thousand dollars less in your pocket, and this is addressing your cynicism with likely reality - there were thousands of dollars in savings via subsidies, write offs, etc.
> 
> ...



yes, they do. And yes, I do capitalize on deductions legally. And yes, I see your point...sort of take the good with the bad.

And no, I am not a partisan. I voted for Cuomo. Almost voted for Hillary, but she lost in the primaries. Locally, I have voted more for democrats than republicans over the past 20 years.

I do, however, dislike President Obama. I do not like his approach, his arrogance, his lack of honesty and his willingness to capitalize on the naivety of his believers.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,


----------



## Listening (Feb 11, 2014)

Treasury: Employers must ?self-attest? that ObamaCare not behind staffing decisions ? under penalty of perjury « Hot Air

The latest announcement comes after the administration heard from businesses about their concerns with the looming ObamaCare rules. However, the change is sure to raise more questions about the health and implementation of the law. Fewer workers getting insurance through their employers could mean more individuals on the ObamaCare exchanges seeking subsidized coverage, increasing the cost to taxpayers.

Some lawmakers, though, have claimed that the mere threat of the employer mandate is causing companies to shed full-time workers in the hope of keeping their staff size below 50 and avoiding the requirement.

Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to certify that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a self-attestation on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

Officials stressed that the latest reprieve applies to a relatively small percentage of employers  albeit companies that employ millions of workers.

*********************

If this is true....what gives the treasury the right to demand such certification.

And if a business says it is doing this....so what ?  What business (pardon the pun) is it of the Treasury Dept.).


----------



## R.D. (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,



Doesn't that by default make you the partisan?


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

R.D. said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,
> ...



No, thanks for asking.


----------



## Jarhead (Feb 11, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Well - we disagree on your partisanship. Not much else to discuss there,



No. There isn't. Hard to interact with someone who thinks he knows more about me than I do.


----------



## G.T. (Feb 11, 2014)

Indeed.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Feb 11, 2014)

Starting to see why they needed so much ammo.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 11, 2014)

*To What End - Obamacare To Force Businesses To Self Certify *

So businesses admit that they know and will obey the law.


----------



## RoadVirus (Feb 11, 2014)

Listening said:


> If this is true....what gives the treasury the right to demand such certification.
> 
> And if a business says it is doing this....so what ?  What business (pardon the pun) is it of the Treasury Dept.).



Don't question your government, citizen!


----------



## bendog (Feb 11, 2014)

That's right, go Glen Beck on the Nazis are coming, while ignoring the rather obvious effects on hiring and new biz growth.  hey shut down the govt again, that's the ticket


----------



## Listening (Feb 11, 2014)

bendog said:


> That's right, go Glen Beck on the Nazis are coming, while ignoring the rather obvious effects on hiring and new biz growth.  hey shut down the govt again, that's the ticket



Since when does the government get to tell businesses who they can and can't hire or fire for economic reasons.

Let's see:

Here is a law....it won't cause your business trouble.

But if it does cause you trouble...you can't respond by doing what businesses do.

So we won't look bad.

Got it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 11, 2014)

This is like the fourth topic on this subject today.. but kind of good to reposting it.. it keeps the democrat sheep reminded.


----------



## Doubletap (Feb 11, 2014)

Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear
-John Galt


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2014)

This entire administration is a goddamn joke.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 11, 2014)

I still want to know if the IRS will nark on employees in right to work states why they got fired . This opens up a flood gate s of law suite's if it becomes public knowledge.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 11, 2014)

Will there be a new "Thought Police" Czar appointed?

Should that require Senate confirmation?

Shouldn't that be part of Obama's IRS Storm Trooper brigade?  Or NSA - where it would be easier to monitor the communications of those who might be thinking to lay off some drones?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 11, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *To What End - Obamacare To Force Businesses To Self Certify *
> 
> So businesses admit that they know and will obey the law.



What is the law exactly you simple minded little fool?

Is it to make sure no business can fire anyone or change their employment status because it makes their business fail? Or is it the fact that under this assinine law the business WILL fail and therefore needs to be pushed into that result? Or is it just to make sure the sheeple of the left blame the business for the failure not the government?

This is pure communism at this point. You as a business will no longer hire or fire people based on productivity or your ability to pay. You WILL pay people x amount of dollars, x amount of benefits and x amount of time off until you can no longer survive. Then we the people that know how to community organize but never ran a business will blame YOU for the failure that will result.

Let me guess what the next step will be for little obie. The government will step in and take over that business to "save the jobs".

This is exactly what obiecare was designed to accomplish. You're an idiot if you think it had anything to do with your healthcare. It was the sinking of the claws of government into every business they can possibly grab in order to push them to bankruptcy and an eventual takeover by the feds. After all, if the private sector can't survive under the thumb of regulation and mandates who is left that can? Of course, only the government can.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 11, 2014)

In France it's pretty close to impossible to fire anyone for anything, no matter how serious a thing might have caused it.

So today O'Bozo spent with the president of France.

We can no longer say he's incapable of learning anything.


----------



## Listening (Feb 11, 2014)

History will show Obama and his administration to be one of the worst ever.

What will be funny is when the GOP gets in there and uses the same unconstitutional crap to shut down abortion regardless of what the SCOTUS says. 

SCOTUS says: Can't do that.

POTUS says: SCOTUS...go f**k yoursleves.  What is SCOTUS going to do ?  If they don't have a sympathetic congress....not a freaking thing.

Can't wait for this abuse to continue in the other direction.

Two wrongs are two wrongs.


----------



## Listening (Feb 11, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> This entire administration is a goddamn joke.



See me laughing ???

A disaster.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 11, 2014)

Listening said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > This entire administration is a goddamn joke.
> ...



I must..... have... that ring....


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 11, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> I must..... have... that ring....



The only ring you, the taxpayer, are gonna get out of this is the indelible ring around the White House bathtubs (if)(when) the current occupancy terminates.


----------



## oreo (Feb 11, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...




You know it would be really nice to know--exactly WHO wrote this clause into Obamacare--because there is no better person than to "tar and feather" and run out of town on a rail.

The STUPIDITY and audacity of threatening business's in this country with the IRS--while interfering in their business financial decisions--that are simply based on gross sales--versus expenses.  More expenses than sales or revenue coming in--means they close their business and EVERYONE loses their jobs.

*I'll tell you--we wonder why Washington D.C. is in such a mess.* It's because MORONS like the one who wrote this clause into Obamacare are running this country.  And if this came from Barack Obama--he really needs to be impeached just for being dumb.  This continual anti--business atmosphere coming from the current administration is killing American jobs in this country.

*Does anyone really believe that a current employer with 30 employees is going to want to grow their business so they can face this kind of crap?-*  With the IRS all over their ass's should they decide to cut back employee hours or lay someone off?   I don't think so.







*Welcome to your hope and change!*   I cannot believe the idiots that voted for this economic moron twice.


----------



## Votto (Feb 11, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...



Wasn't this in that movie "Atlas Shrugged"?

Pfft, I've seen all this before.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 11, 2014)

Book.

Then movie.  Final part still in production.

Still time to change the ending.

Fat fucking chance.


----------



## oreo (Feb 11, 2014)

Listening said:


> History will show Obama and his administration to be one of the worst ever.
> 
> What will be funny is when the GOP gets in there and uses the same unconstitutional crap to shut down abortion regardless of what the SCOTUS says.
> 
> ...



That is bullshit.  Roe v Wade is over 40 years old now.  _We have had several Republican administrations with full houses--that didn't get near the courts decision on abortion or ever had a Republican President just sign an executive order to stop it._

Obama on the other hand has continually usurped his constitutional authority by single handedly changing a passed bill (Obamacare) without congressional approval.  And he's done it 27 times.



> Generally speaking, you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law, lawlessly. I mean, this is stuff that you do in a banana republic. It&#8217;s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants and any provision. It&#8217;s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election, and it&#8217;s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do. &#8230; *It&#8217;s not incompetence. Willful breaking of the constitutional order &#8212; where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter a law 27 times after it&#8217;s been passed?*


Krauthammer: These ObamaCare changes are getting so endemic, ?nobody even complains? anymore « Hot Air

In all my 60+ years I have never seen a President do this.  One who has disregarded and had so much distain for the U.S. Constitution as evidenced--and done it so blatantly. Our government structure was set up by our forefathers to prevent exactly what is happening now.  *Rogue actions* by one branch of the government, specifically the POTUS can be stopped by adhering to the U.S. Constitution.  If not, then consider this country to be a dictatorship.






*Welcome to your hope and change!
*


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 12, 2014)

_*"Gulliver's Travels"*_by Jonathan Swift  describes an intra-Lilliputian quarrel over the practice of breaking eggs. 
The differences between Big-Endians (those who broke their eggs at the larger end) and Little-Endians had given rise to "six rebellions... wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown". The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu.
Lilliput and Blefuscu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Today we see this totally idiotic interpretation another law!
Under threat of penalty.. by the IRS...
Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. 
How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? 

Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS  under penalty of perjury  that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.
The move is being labeled as a 1984-esque move, laden with Thought Police implications, and others believe that employers are being greedy by firing people to avoid ObamaCare costs.
Companies must swear to the IRS why they are firing people - AGBeat

So a business owner WHO is letting people go because his health care COSTS escalate under Obamacare MUST have every other reason for cutting employees EXCEPT
his operating costs would go up due to Obamacare!


----------



## MACAULAY (Feb 12, 2014)

This is the biggest assault on the Constitution to date by these Socialists Humbugs.

Its an issue kind of hidden in the weeds, so the Socialist Media will help them get away with it....but it is a very dangerous precedent.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 12, 2014)

This is the first step in nationalization of businesses totally.
Remember if the business has an employee who complains that he was let go because his employer wanted to stay under the cap.
That employer will be at the minimum spend time and money defending the decision.


----------



## Zander (Feb 12, 2014)

When government regulations as brobdingnagian as the ACA are passed- this is what you get.  

 

PS- bigendian's rule!!


----------



## Vox (Feb 12, 2014)

Jonathan Swift was one of the best political satirics of all times ( yes, "Gulliver Travels "ARE satire)


----------



## g5000 (Feb 12, 2014)

I crack my eggs in the middle, like any sane person does.


----------



## healthmyths (Feb 14, 2014)

g5000 said:


> I crack my eggs in the middle, like any sane person does.



Ah... compromise !


----------



## NightFox (Feb 14, 2014)

healthmyths said:


> The Lilliputian religion says an egg should be broken on the convenient end, which is now interpreted by the Lilliputians as the smaller end. The Big-Endians gained favour in Blefuscu.



So let me get this straight... you're supposed to crack the shells on those things BEFORE you eat 'em? and all this time I thought eggs were supposed to be crunchy.. who knew?


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 14, 2014)

Hope and Change baby

wasn't this your AMERCIAN dream when electing the first black President?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 14, 2014)

*We are moments away from fundamentally transforming America comrades !*


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 14, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...



B]here is the law from the affordable care act you decided whats being done here [/B]
Part III &#8211; Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
Request for Comments on Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health
Coverage (Section 4980H)
Notice 2011-36 --
Many provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable
Care Act) that are designed to promote expanded, affordable health coverage become
effective beginning in 2014. These include provisions for shared responsibility for
employers regarding health coverage, coverage to be offered by State Exchanges,
premium tax credits to assist individuals in purchasing coverage through State
Exchanges, and related provisions. As part of the process of planning for
implementation of these provisions, the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the
Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
(collectively, the three Departments) are working in concert to develop regulations and
other administrative guidance that will respond to questions and assist stakeholders
with implementation.
I. PURPOSE
This request for comments is intended to initiate and inform the process of
developing regulatory guidance regarding the shared employer responsibility provisions
in § 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Those provisions, which apply for
months beginning after December 31, 2013, refer to certain standards relating to the
offering of health coverage by employers to their full-time employees. Under § 4980H,
an &#8220;applicable large employer&#8221; that does not meet those standards may be liable for an
2
&#8220;assessable payment&#8221; if at least one of its full-time employees is certified as having
enrolled in health insurance through a State Exchange with respect to which a premium
tax credit under § 36B of the Code, a cost-sharing reduction under § 1402 of the
Affordable Care Act, or an advance payment of such credit or reduction under § 1412 of
the Affordable Care Act is allowed or paid.
This notice does not constitute guidance. Instead, it describes potential
approaches, which could be incorporated in future proposed regulations, to certain
discrete issues under § 4980H, particularly the issue of who is a full-time employee, and
invites comments on these approaches. Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) intend to publish such proposed regulations both on the § 4980H issues
addressed in this notice and on a broader set of issues under § 4980H. This notice also
invites comments on the interpretation of the 90-day limitation on waiting periods for
group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance
coverage under § 2708 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, and on how the
interpretations of that section and of § 4980H should be coordinated. The three
Departments are coordinating their efforts in developing the regulations and other
guidance on the shared employer responsibility provisions (Treasury/IRS guidance), the
90-day limitation on waiting periods (three Department guidance), automatic enrollment
for employees of large employers (DOL guidance),1 and other Affordable Care Act
provisions.
1 Section 18A of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as added by § 1511 of the Affordable Care Act,
requires employers subject to the FLSA that have more than 200 full-time employees and that offer
enrollment in one or more health benefit plans to automatically enroll new full-time employees in one of
the plans offered (subject to any waiting period authorized by law), and to continue the enrollment of
current employees in the employer&#8217;s plan. Under FLSA § 18A, which is enforced by the DOL, any
automatic enrollment program must include adequate notice and the opportunity to opt out of any


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 14, 2014)

We ALL need to pray we SURVIVE this President and his COMRADES in arms

I can't believe you people brought this down on us





A nation can survive it's fools and even the ambitious

BUT IT CANNOT survive treason from WITHIN


----------



## JimofPennsylvan (Feb 14, 2014)

The Obama Administration are really a bunch of bastards and their recent behavior with respect to the Affordable Care Act clearly demonstrates this!   This past week they postponed the commencement of the employer penalty in the ACA for employers not offering qualified health insurance to its employees until the beginning of 2016 for employers with 50 to 99 employees.  They are clearly ignoring the ACA law here, the President's duty is to obey and enforce the law and Barack Obama time and again violates this duty.   The ACA clearly says that the employer penalty is to begin on January 1 2014 and he had already postponed it to 2015 now he is extending it for another year for medium size employers and even with respect to large employers he isn't following the law.   For large employers pursuant to the ACA they should be covering their employees dependents come January 1 2014 (2015 if you factor in Obama's one year postponement) but the Obama administration has ruled employers  don't actually have to do this until 2016 as long as they begin the process in 2015 so employers could do as little as conduct a survey in 2015 asking how many dependents if at all each employee wants to add to their health insurance plan and the employer is compliant;  the Obama administration contrary to the ACA time mandates says employers don't have to actually provide qualified health insurance to their employees in 2015 until that employer begins its annual health insurance plan for 2015 the ACA says January 1 is the deadline - America could see prudent employers end their annual plan at the end of November 2014 and begin their new one December 1 2014 so that they will not have to pay the higher health insurance expense for eleven months of 2015! 

       The Obama Administration is really bad because they are doing this delay to hide the negative effects of the ACA on America's employers they know this law adds a significant expense to America's employers which will hurt job creation and hurt wage growth by America's employers but instead of coming out and saying we have a problem here with the economic burden this law puts on America's employers we have to roll back some of the law's insurance mandates they try to hide the problem.  It is shocking how ruthless, cunning and how bad the Obama administration is here.  With all these recent ACA employer mandate postponement decisions the Obama Administration is delaying the predictable wave of employers dropping their health insurance plans that would have otherwise occurred this summer and fall if Jan. 1 2015 was the commencement date until after the 2014 mid-term elections because during this summer/early fall time period employer human resource managers and top executives have to decide whether to continue offering health insurance to their employees for the 2015 year and these postponements mean that these employers won't see the full costs of the ACA mandates for 2015.  Further the Obama administration's essential postponement of the ACA law for the employer mandate until 2016 which is what is going on here means that the full negative economic effects of this law, the dropping of health insurance plans by employers the not replacing of employees that retire or leave for benefit expense reasons, won't be seen until the next President's administration, meaning future Presidential Administrations will have to clean up the huge societal mess brought on by Obamacare!  The Obama Administration officials know all of this they know they are mitigating the ACA harm by postponing enforcement and they know that they are not following the ACA law in doing this and yet they are still doing it, this should make every responsible person mad with Barack Obama!  What is also important to note is that the American people are smart and many of them know and more will know what the Obama Administration is doing with its cunningness here!


      What is really unfortunate is that America doesn't have a person of great character in the White House at the present time!   The ACA act has a lot of good about it it stops health insurance company abuses like dropping enrollees from their plan when the enrollees get sick it helps people buy health insurance that otherwise would never be able to afford it, etc. and I can understand how President Obama let it become law, but elements of it are catastrophic for America it jacked up the price of employer sponsored health insurance for employers causing them to dramatic cut back on job creation and keep many employees on part-time employment.  Where is your character Mr. President that you don't even try to stop this catastrophe on America.   The American people know you can't reform the law yourself you need Congress to pass a reform law but character means trying even if you don't succeed why don't you come out and say the obvious truth that the ACA mandates on health insurance plans are too costly America needs to roll them back and I will sign legislation that rolls back unaffordable unnecessary mandates like making preventive care free it is sufficient that it be excluded from the deductible, like treating psychiatric treatments equivalent to non-psychiatric treatments it is sufficient plans only reasonably cover psychiatric treatment if a person is suicidal or cannot function with their psychiatric illness, like covering dental treatments even the dental industry was shocked when that was included in the law, etc..  I would like to ask President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius each to answer the following question and I would like a commitment from them that they would answer it honestly and this is the question I would ask them how can you say the ACA is good for the economy and at the same time be making extraordinary efforts to delay its implementation which these postponements of the employer mandate required by the ACA do? 


      Many people believe that Barack Obama and liberal Democrats have as their ultimate plan moving American to a single payer government health insurance system and the enactment of ACA role in this plan is to cause a cascading of employers dropping their health insurance  which will put many Americans into the ACA entitlement program which helps people pay for health insurance.  These liberal democrats thinking is that this single payer system will be just like Medicare which is a great system but it will be for all Americans not just Americans who are senior citizens.  There is two major flaws in these liberal democrats thinking which is Medicare only provides a great health care system for seniors because of the private health care system;  the Medicare system is a price controlled system meaning that the fees it pays medical care providers are fixed by Medicare and this is the crucial point these fees are not high enough to pay for the system seniors enjoy today private health insurance providers for the vast majority of services pay higher fees to hospital, doctors and other health care providers.  The private health insurance system essentially subsidizes the Medicare system if liberal democrats get their way and essentially do away with the private health insurance system and America is left with a large Medicare type system America's health care system will deteriorate to a significantly less quality system because there will not be the money available to pay for the higher quality system.  Secondly,  in a single payer government system the government is the payer the government pays the claims this would be a humongous expense for the U.S. government where is the government going to get this amount of money the only place would be to tax employers and employees and they would have to be big ones,  the American people would never accept this long term they would recognize that a big bureaucratic government cannot efficiently and effectively manage America's health care dollars and they would demand such a system be ended!


----------



## Rozman (Feb 14, 2014)

If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
Why can't companies make adjustments to their workforce so not to take a hit on taxes.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 14, 2014)

Rozman said:


> If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
> Why can't companies make adjustments to their workforce so not to take a hit on taxes.



cause the prezbo says so


----------



## william the wie (Feb 14, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > If the Obama Care law is a tax and the Supreme court said it is.
> ...


The takings clause lawsuits should be epic.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 14, 2014)

william the wie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



sound familiar 

running the unions 

and 

running the businesses 

the collectivist model

nationalize everything


----------



## edthecynic (Feb 14, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...


The actual words from the final law:

http://op.bna.com/dt.nsf/id/emcy-9g7t3r/$File/TD%209655.pdf

a. Eligibility conditions for transition relief 



An employer is eligible for the transition relief described in this section XV.D.6 if it satisfies the following conditions: 



(1) Limited Workforce Size. The employer employs on average at least 50 full- time employees (including FTEs) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including FTEs) on business days during 2014. For this purpose, the determination of the number of full-time employees (including FTEs) is made in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules for determining status as an applicable large employer. 




(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition set forth in paragraph (1) of this section XV.D.6. A reduction in workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons will not be considered to have been made in order to satisfy the workforce size condition. For example, reductions of workforce size or overall hours of service because of business activity such as the sale of a division, changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates, terminations of employment for poor performance, or other similar changes unrelated to eligibility for the transition relief provided in this section XV.D.6 are for bona fide business reasons and will not affect eligibility for that transition relief.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 14, 2014)

Bad Administration. Bad!


----------



## william the wie (Feb 14, 2014)

So, come 2016 the terminations fly, unless the courts rule against the administration and it happens earlier.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Feb 14, 2014)

I'm not certain how any of that is even legal, not that it matters anymore.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 14, 2014)

one question  aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?


----------



## william the wie (Feb 15, 2014)

R.C. Christian said:


> I'm not certain how any of that is even legal, not that it matters anymore.


That's one problem with this policy but take one loophole: liquidation and reopening elsewhere with contract labor. that is not technically firing anyone.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 15, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> one question  aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?


purportedly.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 15, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> one question  aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?



the first round of sign ups is from january to the end of march... at the beginning of march starts the second sign up ....after that at the end of the year, in if you haven't sign up for health care you will be levied a fine ...how much you will be fine is based on your income ...

 the prediction of the first sign up was calculated by the CBO ...that was supposed to be around 5 to 10 million people ... do to the screw up with the website the ACA got off on slow start in January ... right now they are on target for 5 million ...by the end of march they are hoping for ten million ... the 40 million will be reduced to 30 million as time goes on through out the year we expect that number to fall greatly... after this mid term election where the republicans are in a disarray right now, we dems expect to take over the house or close to it and retain the senate and maybe add 5 more ... making it next to impossible for the republicans to filibuster ... we expect all the states who refuse to take the federal health care money for medicaid, we expect to add on law to the ACA forcing( I like that word) Forcing these republican states to comply to the ACA new regulations ...in other words we will have every body sign up case closed ...end of discussion ...accept for these whining republicans here ....whining about being FORCED... TELLING US ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND SHIT ...  did I tell you how much I like those two word ??? FORCED REPUBLICANS !!!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 15, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> Hope and Change baby
> 
> wasn't this your AMERCIAN dream when electing the first black President?



Stephoney isn't there a porn site for you to go and look at ???  you know where you get hammered by some black guy president !!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 15, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> ...



it says it plain if you have 50 employees or more you have to have a legitimate  reason for reducing your employees ... if you don't if you reduce them because you don't want to comply with the law you will still have to comply to the law ... there's nothing in the law that says you will be charged with perjury ... where every you get this crap is beyond me ... a legitimate reason is you're lslowing down in production ... you've lost in sales  ...were you have to reduce your staff to stay afloat ... if thats not easy enough for you to understand I don't know what is... nobody is being charged with perjury


----------



## dblack (Feb 15, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The claim of the OP is clearly overstated. Businesses can layoff whomever they want, it's just a question of whether doing so will allow them to qualify for the byzantine exemptions that permeate ACA. But it's still a disturbing trend, and the primary danger of programs like ACA in my view. It further weds government and business into a corporatist mess that will be impossible to untangle if we don't stop it now.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 15, 2014)

The purpose in continuing delays is for one purpose only. Elections. If it all went into effect now the Democrats would lose big.


----------



## Victory67 (Feb 15, 2014)

You can't drastically reduce your workforce size just to comply with Obamacare provisions.

So?


----------



## JimH52 (Feb 15, 2014)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> Here is another link:
> 
> Thought Police: Firms must swear ObamaCare not a factor in firings | Fox News
> 
> ...



So the Thread title is a lie.  The only thing this does is prevent companies from firing someone who has suffered major medical issues, purely to avoid the insurance costs.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.
> 
> ...



Are you right wing pea brains really THAT fucking stupid, or just scum sucking lying sacks of dogshit??


----------



## william the wie (Feb 15, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> The purpose in continuing delays is for one purpose only. Elections. If it all went into effect now the Democrats would lose big.


Except Obama and the Ds forgot that insurance companies have to file audited quarterly reports.


----------



## Antares (Feb 15, 2014)

RDD_1210 said:


> AquaAthena said:
> 
> 
> > The Democratic war on *capitalism.* Obama hates it and has the DOJ in his pocket to keep things corrupt.
> ...



Weird, you as ill educated as they come.

What happens EVERY TIME the Fed HINTS at curbing QE210?

Amazing what happens when you pump 85 BIILION dollars a month into the economy....and interestingly enough the rich are getting richer because of the Bamster.


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 15, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another link:
> ...



No!  Someone suffering major medical issues have nothing to do with it.  It has to do with a company trimming it's workforce from 100 or above down to 99 or less with the purpose of being exempt from the mandate.  The employees that are layed off (fired) could be perfectly healthy.


----------



## Mojo2 (Feb 15, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Holy fuck.



Exactly!

That was my reaction when i first heard of this a couple of days ago.

And my impression since then, when considering the tepid and 'ho-hum' response by the American public has been that this event is kind of a gauge of our Sheepleness.

We are mindless and are able to be herded like sheep and all we care about is making sure that we are not violating Political Correctness and that we are comfortable and comfortably impaired by drugs, smoke, drink or the entertainment media.

THIS is exactly how the frog gets boiled.

Whether you readers know it or not, this shit is serious.

Get up off your ass and do something, serious.

Or at least register your outrage by flaming Obama on these pages. That's the level of seriousness this stuff warrants!

Instead, many people are just continuing to post as if nothing much is going on. They are focusing on the 'merits' of this bill or law.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! 

It is as clear and unmistakable an indication that a hostile government coup d'etat has taken place and the President is now lawless and is trying to grab OUR power.

And he has played his hand almost perfectly.

You all are still non-plussed by this act of tyranny.

You didn't recognize it when you found out about it.

You didn't become alarmed about it.

You still may not care about what Obama has done.

You don't seem interested in hearing anything about it or talking about it.

No wonder he has taken it upon himself to act like a Dictator.

We have let our knowledge of government become flaccid. Our defense from a usurping con man is as failed as the Trojans were negligent in protecting themselves from the Greeks of the Trojan Horse event.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RYGQQ_qybY]The Trojan Horse - YouTube[/ame]

He is inside our walls and we are being robbed of our freedoms.

Those of you who don't react to the alarm bells going off now don't deserve freedom.

What will you tell your grandkids as to why you let this happen without a fight???

And it's NOT just the Conservatives who should be up in arms and moved by a sense of urgency at this assault on our system of government.

EVERY American who loves this country, our Constitution and our way of life should be going crazy at this.


----------



## Antares (Feb 15, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > one question  aren't there still like 40 million left uninsured?
> ...



*the first round of sign ups is from january to the end of march... at the beginning of march starts the second sign up ....after that at the end of the year, in if you haven't sign up for health care you will be levied a fine ...how much you will be fine is based on your income ...*

Billy?

Show us where that "second" sign up is described in the ACA?


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 15, 2014)

Antares said:


> .........if you haven't sign up for health care you will be levied a fine ...how much you will be fine is based on your income ...
> Billy?
> 
> Show us where that "second" sign up is described in the ACA?



Income?  Yeah, IF any.

Please call "ACA" the OBAMACARE that it is because failing so to do is to give the left the chance to convince the low-information voters that Obama had nothing to do with the Great American Travesty - and it's all Bush's fault.


----------



## Antares (Feb 15, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > .........if you haven't sign up for health care you will be levied a fine ...how much you will be fine is based on your income ...
> ...



I would have thought that since Billy has proclaimed that he has "researched" and "read" he entire ACA he would have known that there is no second sign up period.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 15, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> 
> ?




Hows this for a reason.  Obama and the democrats have failed to fix the economy so I have to cut my workforce


----------



## Mojo2 (Feb 15, 2014)

The exchanges by most of the posters in this thread remind me of the people seated at the table in this TV commercial.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvJJDjkVwhM]Royal Bank of Scotland "Heimlich" - YouTube[/ame]

*OUR COUNTRY HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER IN A BLOODLESS COUP D'ETAT WHICH THREATENS ALL OUR FREEDOMS FOREVER.*

WAKE THE HELL UP AND DO SOMETHING INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THE LAW BEING USED TO SUBJUGATE US!!!


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 15, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> Hows this for a reason.  Obama and the democrats have failed to fix the economy so I have to cut my workforce


They can't fix it because they're the problem.


----------



## JimH52 (Feb 15, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Hows this for a reason.  Obama and the democrats have failed to fix the economy so I have to cut my workforce
> ...



I have the solution!  Give the economy back to the GOP, who screwed it in the first place!  Yeah, that will do it!


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 15, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> ...



Avoiding the mandate is a valid business reason for reducing a business' workforce if it affects the bottom line.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 15, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...


Your avatar is appropriate. Blame it on the GOP and ignore reality. The GOP didn't cause the housing crisis or Pelosi's out f control spending. Bush helped but he isn't the GOP and Obama made him look like a spendthrift.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Your only problem is you are ignorant. 







The housing crisis was caused by private lending institutions and Wall Street...ALL who were spit swapping with Republicans


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 15, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



And encouraged by Bill Clintoon that everyone should own their own home with the sub prime loans


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Celebrate your ignorance. It is ALL you have.

The housing crisis was NOT caused by poor and middle class families buying a homestead. It was caused by wealthy speculators trying to make a quick buck. And when the values of the houses they bought as an investment went south, they DUMPED a bad investment.

Maybe you just FORGOT...

Bush's 'ownership society'

"America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgagesderivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system, improbably, to the brink of collapse.

End of the Ownership Society


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 15, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > For this and for businesses with 50-100 employees, the answer is yes. Buried deep within the IRS regulations pertaining to Obamacare, section 4980H of the IRS Code seemingly tells business to affirm the reasons why they are reducing their workforces to qualify for transitive relief from Obamacare. Many businesses are cutting jobs to avoid having to comply with the employer mandate, here though, these business are being told they cannot reduce the sizes of their staff without having a "bona-fide business reason" for doing so. If they somehow fail to meet this requirement or provide a sufficient reason to the IRS, they could be seemingly slapped with perjury charges.
> ...



Interesting. I suggest you deal with it.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 15, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



You fucking idiot, you and your right wing propaganda sources TOTALLY fabricated something that doesn't exist. A simple READ of 'context' blows your absurd bullshit out of the water.

Heading: *Transition Relief*
*
34. Is additional transition relief available for employers with at least 50 but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents)?*

Yes. For employers with fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) in 2014, that meet the conditions described below, no Employer Shared Responsibility payment under section 4980H(a) or (b) will apply for any calendar month during 2015. For employers with non-calendar-year health plans, this applies to any calendar month during the 2015 plan year, including months during the 2015 plan year that fall in 2016. 

In order to be eligible for the relief, an employer must certify that it meets the following conditions:

*(1) Limited Workforce Size.* The employer must employ on average at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) but fewer than 100 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during 2014. (Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) on business days during the previous year are not subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility provisions.) The number of full-time employees (including full-time equivalents) is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations for determining status as an applicable large employer.

*(2) Maintenance of Workforce and Aggregate Hours of Service. * During the period beginning on Febr. 9, 2014 and ending on Dec. 31, 2014, the employer may not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to qualify for the transition relief. However, an employer that reduces workforce size or overall hours of service for bona fide business reasons is still eligible for the relief.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 15, 2014)

There again in (2) above is that delicious little phrase:

"...is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations...."

Which means that what low-information victim wannabes think of as "settled law" has not yet been written by any legislator.  But will be created out of thin air by unelected bureaucrats.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 16, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> There again in (2) above is that delicious little phrase:
> 
> "...is determined in accordance with the otherwise applicable rules in the final regulations...."
> 
> Which means that what low-information victim wannabes think of as "settled law" has not yet been written by any legislator.  But will be created out of thin air by unelected bureaucrats.





Antares said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...





Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



there isnt one 

all that is needed as the prezbo says 

is his pen and phone


----------



## william the wie (Feb 16, 2014)

Since his promises cost actual and unauthorized tax dollars he is risking censure for embezzlement and civil charges after leaving office that might get a little touchy.


----------



## Darkwind (Feb 16, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...


cool story.  

Turn off the cartoon network and take a look around you.  With this almighty pen, the President has rewritten the law over 27 times.


BTW.....A company downsizing to avoid paying significant penalties by poorly written laws strikes Me as a legitimate business decision.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 16, 2014)

I suspect the courts will agree with you.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Your only problem is you are ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did you get your chart? You should link the source.


Charts of Past Spending - UsGovernmentSpending.com





Your understanding of the housing crisis is one dimensional but you are obviously too stupid to care.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Bush's 'ownership society'[/SIZE]
> 
> "America is a stronger country every single time a family moves into a home of their own," George W. Bush said in October 2004. To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it soundsa government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.


Bush was/is not the GOP. Bush was very far from being a fiscal conservative. I could never understand why he made liberals foam over at the mouth, they got series of wet dreams with Bush. Conservatives were not happy with much of what he did but you seem to need a bogeyman to blame. There was also Democrat led efforts to blackmail banks into subprime lending with the threat of losing their FDIC status.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Your only problem is you are ignorant.
> ...



Graph: Federal Net Outlays (FYONET) - FRED - St. Louis Fed


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Antares (Feb 16, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > There again in (2) above is that delicious little phrase:
> ...



Well I know that, and YOU know that....but I wanted Billy Boy to come into that knowledge.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Your only problem is you are ignorant.
> ...



If you would take the time to look you can see on Bfgrn's chart that it originates from the CBO...that's the Congressional Budget Office. Your chart  comes from some peanut gallery.

BTW Obama couldn't spend a dime without the Rep controlled House's approval. They have had their racist hands around Obama's economic testicles ever since he took over the WH!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Obama was elected in 2008.



LOL...you are trying to 'school' me on economics, yet you don't even understand how the Federal budget works...

The first year of any incoming president term is saddledfor better or for worsewith the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bushand passed by the 2008 Congressit was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? - Forbes


On January 20th, 2001, George W. Bush was sworn into office  but the budget for most of the rest of that year was Bill Clintons, passed by the prior Congress. Barack Obama was sworn in on January 20th, 2009  but the budget for most of that year was that of George W. Bush. Why are these so? Because the Federal governments fiscal year runs from October 1 (of the previous calendar year) to September 30. Hence, the FY 2001 is Clintons and FY 2002 is Bushs. FY2009 is Bushs, FY 2010 is Obamas.

The actual budgets of the Presidents and their deficits  thats what this is about, right?  are as follows:

    George W. Bush is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2001:

    10/1/2001: Bush starting deficit  $5.8 trillion

    9/30/2009: Bush ending deficit  $11.9 trillion

    Bush debt contribution: $6.1 trillion

    Barack H. Obama is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2009:

    10/1/2009: Obama starting deficit  $11.9 trillion

    9/30/2011: Obama ending deficit  $14.8 trillion

    Obama debt contribution: $2.9 trillion

Of the $14.8 trillion in total debt as of September 30, 2011, the Bush budgets generated $6.1 trillion in deficits versus the $2.9 trillion of Obama deficits. Thats 41.2% vs 19.6% by a reasonable methodology of measuring presidential debt.

These are the actual Presidential Budget deficits  not time in office, which is simply an irrelevant measure that no fair minded, mathematically literate person would use. (Thank you to my readers who schooled me in the details of the federal governments Fiscal Year).

Understanding Federal Debt & Presidential Budgets, Fiscal Year Edition | The Big Picture


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> You do know that Obama was inaugurated in January,  2009 don't you. He was elected in NOV 2008, which means the Fiscal year 2009 budget was started one month prior to Obama's election. Now that you have been educated I expect to see more intelligence in your postings!


Ja Woll! Und now show us vere Bush signed it.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2009 United States federal budget

 The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Obama was elected in 2008.
> ...


JaWoll!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that Obama was inaugurated in January,  2009 don't you. He was elected in NOV 2008, which means the Fiscal year 2009 budget was started one month prior to Obama's election. Now that you have been educated I expect to see more intelligence in your postings!
> ...



You need to drop the 'ice'...you are just a dishonest 'weasel'


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> You need to drop the 'ice'...you are just a dishonest 'weasel'


Facts is facts, sorry. 

Obama?s Deficit Dodge
Obamas response leaves the false impression that President George W. Bush and the 2008 recession are responsible for a whopping 90 percent of the deficits in the last four years.

Its true that Obama inherited the biggest deficit in our history, as he said on CBS. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that increased spending and decreased revenues would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008. In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > You need to drop the 'ice'...you are just a dishonest 'weasel'
> ...



Hey pea brain...203 billion/1.4 trillion= 0.145. So Bush is responsible for 85.5%...LOL


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 16, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that Obama was inaugurated in January,  2009 don't you. He was elected in NOV 2008, which means the Fiscal year 2009 budget was started one month prior to Obama's election. Now that you have been educated I expect to see more intelligence in your postings!
> ...



Yep the GOP cluster fuck threw everything out of balance; thus the delay, so I guess It was a bilateral budget, eh? George Bush still submitted the initial budget request though!



			
				 wikipedia said:
			
		

> The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2]* The final spending bills *for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.



The dirty GOP bahs-turds were quick slick weren't they? Leaving their dirty work to the new president who had only been in office for three months.

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY  2009 budget.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 16, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...




I can agree with most of this...except this part keeps getting attributed to BUSHHH only... 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This was submitted by a D House, passed by a D Senate and signed by a D President, before the President even signed the budget?

The FY 2009 budget was written by the 110th Congress, which wiki claims D's held the majority of the Senate, and it was definitely a D House. 

My guess is that Buuuuuuushhhhhhh! didn't care for the amendments to the budget and chose not to sign?
Was the ARRA of 2009 in Bush's original budget submission?
Were the TARP bailouts part of the FY 2009 budget?



> As of December 31, 2012, the Treasury had received over $405 billion in total cash back on TARP investments, equaling nearly a non-inflation-adjusted 97 percent of the $418 billion disbursed under the program



Who gets credit in their budget for this reimbursement?




It doesn't fkn matter at this point!
We are in a massive amount of debt and need to dig the hell out!


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 16, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



The BIG LIE...

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

The Fiscal Solutions Tour is the latest Peter G. Peterson Foundation effort to rouse the public against deficits and the national debt &#8212; and in particular (though they manage to avoid saying so) to win support for measures that would impose drastic cuts on Social Security and Medicare. It features Robert Bixby of the Concord Coalition, former Comptroller General David Walker and the veteran economist Alice Rivlin, whose recent distinctions include serving on the Bowles-Simpson commission. They came to Austin on February 9 and (partly because Rivlin is an old friend) I went.

Mr. Bixby began by describing the public debt as &#8220;the defining issue of our time.&#8221; It is, he said, a question of &#8220;how big a debt we can have and what can we afford?&#8221; He did not explain why this is so. He did not, for instance, attempt to compare the debt to the financial crisis, to joblessness or foreclosures, nor to energy or climate change. Oddly none of those issues were actually mentioned by anyone, all evening long.

A notable feature of Bixby&#8217;s presentation were his charts. One of them showed clearly how the public deficit soared at the precise moment that the financial crisis struck in late 2008. The chart also shows how the Clinton surpluses had started to disappear in the recession of 2000. But Mr. Bixby seemed not to have noticed either event. Flashing this chart, he merely commented that &#8220;Congress took care&#8221; of the budget surplus. Still, the charts did show the facts &#8212; and in this respect they were the intellectual highpoint of the occasion.

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, *Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946.* And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct &#8212; not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. *The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s*.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 16, 2014)

A Salon opinion three years old??
by,
James K. Galbraith is a Vice President of Americans for Democratic Action.

Sweet pea, try again?


----------



## BobPlumb (Feb 16, 2014)

I big thing I have a problem with is that business must certify that they did not lay people off to avoid the mandate.  What is the purpose of this?  One purpose is to prevent spokes people for small businesses going on the news to report that they fired people because of Obamacare even if they do.  If this were to happen, the IRS could be paying a visit to the business very soon.

Obama doesn't want hundreds of little local news stories about small businesses trimming their work forces to avoid the mandated.


----------



## oreo (Feb 16, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > JQPublic1 said:
> ...



There's no doubt that Obama inherited a mess when he came into office.  An economy that was falling apart--lost jobs--banking bailouts--it was a very tough time.

The problem with Obama--is after he borrowed and spent $878.00 BILLION dollars for the jobs recovery act, while promising that it would create millions of jobs--and 6 years later--WE HAVE NO JOBS.

Therefore, he holds the title as the worst cough-cough so called "jobless" economic recovery in this nations history--and there is no getting around that.

With Obamacare--he's made it even worse.  *There is NO employer in this country that is going to want to grow their business and hire more employees--so they can have the IRS breathing down their backs.*


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 17, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Yep the GOP cluster fuck threw everything out of balance; thus the delay, so I guess It was a bilateral budget, eh? George Bush still submitted the initial budget request though


...which got ammended with additions. How is it the GOP's fault if they couldn't reach an agreement with the Dems? Try to keep up. Obama was under no obligation to sign it, but as we see, he wanted even more.


> The dirty GOP bahs-turds were quick slick weren't they? Leaving their dirty work to the new president who had only been in office for three months.
> 
> Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.


So why didn't you include the dirty Dem bahs-turds? Bush was far from being a fiscal conservative. Liberals should have been very pleased with him but even Obama doesn't spend enough of other people's money.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 17, 2014)

oreo said:


> The problem with Obama--is after he borrowed and spent $878.00 BILLION dollars for the jobs recovery act, while promising that it would create millions of jobs--and 6 years later--WE HAVE NO JOBS.


Much of it went to bs projects. Contrary to what we were told, only 10% went to infrastructure. Of that, 12% went to the failing bridge crisis. No one can piss money away better than the federal government.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with Obama--is after he borrowed and spent $878.00 BILLION dollars for the jobs recovery act, while promising that it would create millions of jobs--and 6 years later--WE HAVE NO JOBS.
> ...



what did i read so far well over 1200 cases of fraud related to the stimulus


----------



## jon_berzerk (Feb 17, 2014)

BobPlumb said:


> I big thing I have a problem with is that business must certify that they did not lay people off to avoid the mandate.  What is the purpose of this?  One purpose is to prevent spokes people for small businesses going on the news to report that they fired people because of Obamacare even if they do.  If this were to happen, the IRS could be paying a visit to the business very soon.
> 
> Obama doesn't want hundreds of little local news stories about small businesses trimming their work forces to avoid the mandated.



of course not 

we are also listed as number 47 in the freedom of the press list 

why not ban free speech of the owner of business 

welcome aboard comrade 

to the fundamental changes the prezbo promised


----------



## dellt (Feb 17, 2014)

> This law is an overreach, simply telling employers they cannot drop below the 50 employer threshold to avoid the law and qualify for an exemption is the creation of a crime, something a neither a sitting President nor any other branch of government (except for the legislative) may do.



America since Obama/Reid/Pelosi and the Dem controlled senate, resembles the old USSR more and more every day.  

America is fast becoming non-recognizable as the land of the free, and we can all thank the democrat party and Obama especially for that transformation.


----------



## oreo (Feb 17, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with Obama--is after he borrowed and spent $878.00 BILLION dollars for the jobs recovery act, while promising that it would create millions of jobs--and 6 years later--WE HAVE NO JOBS.
> ...



The INTENT was to create Millions of Jobs with that money--as was PROMISED by Obama a thousand times.  Instead Obama pissed it away on anything and everything other than job creation.  Remember the so-called "summer of recovery?"--LOL.

Instead he used the first two years of his term--in a filibuster proof congress to shove Obamacare down everyone's throat.  Now that's imploding.

Our community organizer (whatever in the heck that is) President--with absolutely no experience in private sector matters--such as JOB growth has failed worse than any President before him.  He continually threatens business in this country--and in turn they have tucked in like a turtle waiting for the threat to leave. And they're going to stay tucked in until he's out of the oval office.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yep the GOP cluster fuck threw everything out of balance; thus the delay, so I guess It was a bilateral budget, eh? George Bush still submitted the initial budget request though
> ...



Nice try but no cigar! Bush started two UNFUNDED wars that were not assigned to any of his budgets. Obama took on that war debt and got blamed for increased spending. IN fact, though, he has spent less than any president  since Eisenhower.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 18, 2014)

oreo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Nice try but no cigar! Bush started two UNFUNDED wars that were not assigned to any of his budgets. Obama took on that war debt and got blamed for increased spending. IN fact, though, he has spent less than any president  since Eisenhower.


Where did you get those facts, MTV?


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 18, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



well for sure there were NO Democrats During the Bush administration

they just came on with Obama's election

So EVERYTHING WRONG today is Democrats and OBAMA'S FAULT...and things are worse for us and getting more so with this bunch of commies in office


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice try but no cigar! Bush started two UNFUNDED wars that were not assigned to any of his budgets. Obama took on that war debt and got blamed for increased spending. IN fact, though, he has spent less than any president  since Eisenhower.
> ...





> During the George W. Bush administration, the federal government spending was increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues were only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (25%). Individual income tax revenues were increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending was increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted, revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%.[3]
> Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since Lyndon B. Johnson.[4]





> Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[5] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2010.



Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax cuts during two unfunded wars and the MEDICARE part D implementation are the legacies of George Bush and his crew 
Hell, enough of this: I have been through this discussion before. Let Blue-collar Eddy school ya:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-of-obama-deficit-success-14.html#post7259303


----------



## Avorysuds (Feb 18, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> I can understand the law being written this way. If a company had 53 employees and suddenly fired 4, would that not be an obvious effort to circumvent the law? Any company doing so, will be fined - they will not be forced to re-hire the already terminated employees. This is mostly to prevent the working class from becoming casualties of the ACA. Employers will pull any stunt they can pull if left to their own devices.
> 
> Where do you guys get this shit?
> 
> ...




I shouldn't have to prove dick shit to the Government as to why I want to hire or fire someone. That's my own business owner's opinion... I only have 13 employee's so I'm not in that boat, but if and when I grow I will avoid ACA crap like the plague, even if it means simply not hiring people.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2014)

> Budget Process and Presidential Terms
> 
> The federal fiscal year lasts from October 1 to September 30 (It ended on June 30 prior to 1976). So, the 2009 fiscal year ended in September of 2009, eight months after Bush left office. When Obama was sworn into office, Bush had already submitted his 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget almost a year earlier. He then signed the stack of resulting appropriations bills submitted to him by Congress throughout 2008 which authorized the federal spending that would take place once the 2009 FY actually began in October. Then, in the fall of 2008, Bush supported and signed additional spending bills providing for various bailouts and stimulus programs that marked the end of his presidency, and which would show up as spending in 2009. Needless to say, the already-enormous 2009 budget that Bush had submitted in early 2008 was not totally reflective of the full impact of the huge spending increases that would eventually be authorized by Bush. Bushs original budget was $3.1 trillion, but once one adds in all the bailouts and stimulus spending also supported by Bush, the number is actually much larger, and this is the number that shows up in the spending figures now being attributed to Obama for FY2009.



Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama


----------



## B. Kidd (Feb 18, 2014)

Democrap care never was/is about making healthcare more affordable, accessible, etc.. It IS about a Gov't power grab into our individual lives and liberty.
It will now be illegal to take normally legal steps to avoid taxes or requirements. The idea that the IRS will have the power to investigate motivations for business practices is a gigantic step on that road that leads to serfdom!


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> During the George W. Bush administration, the federal government spending was increased from $1789 billion to $2983 billion (70%) but the revenues were only increased from $2025 billion to $2524 billion (25%). Individual income tax revenues were increased by 14%, corporate tax revenues by 50%, customs and duties by 40%. Discretionary defense spending was increased by 107%, discretionary domestic spending by 62%, Medicare spending by 131%, social security by 51%, and income security spending by 130%. Cyclically adjusted, revenues rose by 35% and spending by 65%.[3]
> Also proportionally Bush increased government spending more than any predecessor since Lyndon B. Johnson.[4]


Yep, Bush was no fiscal conservative. You blamed it all on two unfunded wars but didn't supply any support, remember? Looks like Medicare and Social Security went up quite a bit, how does that not factor in? Those are massive programs.


> Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. Among other changes, the lowest income tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%, the 27% rate went to 25%, the 30% rate went to 28%, the 35% rate went to 33%, and the top marginal tax rate went from 39.6% to 35%.[5] In addition, the child tax credit went from $500 to $1000, and the "marriage penalty" was reduced. Since the cuts were implemented as part of the annual congressional budget resolution, which protected the bill from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of debate, it had to include a sunset clause. Unless congress passed legislation making the tax cuts permanent, they were to expire in 2010.


Yep, and the housing crisis started the whole downward slope. Then Obama came in and spent more. Your point is what exactly?


> Tax cuts during two unfunded wars and the MEDICARE part D implementation are the legacies of George Bush and his crew
> Hell, enough of this: I have been through this discussion before. Let Blue-collar Eddy school ya:


How were the wars unfunded? You left that out. Congress passed it and wrote the checks, how is it all Bush's fault anyway? But you have yet to demonstrate how the wars were the problem, that's a conclusion you made.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 18, 2014)

Dear Mojo: Even where people have been horrified from the get go with this individual mandate, they have felt powerless to do anything -- if the only vocal objections are either rightwing extreme or Tea Party shutdowns.

I have friends who are liberal who have nowhere to turn because the party is sold out to tow the line against the GOP as "not a choice to align with but as the opposition to any reform at all."

One friend who reported that the SinglePayer advocacy groups are against ACA
can't align with him on using prison reforms to offer a better way to revamp
the state budgets to pay for health care. So the left is divided between the
Greens and real left who want sustainable care and insurance companies OUT
and the politicians entrenched in keeping politics as usual (same problem with GOP).

So both sides are stuck waiting for the ax to fall before anyone takes action.

I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame  either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.

People do care but things seem politically deadlocked. I had one friend who offered an alternative on the GOP side but people are too consumed with elections to beat this thing that way, they don't even have room to look at corrective alternatives, only fighting by party. A lot of people are sidelined with  no direction; one friend cannot get any health care help and is depressed. his health is in such a terrible state, he can't speak out and fight.

And if he did, he doesn't want his objection abused for the GOP to win political points.
so again he cannot align with them he still sees as the enemy. though he agrees
the ACA mandates should have been delayed, and the tax removed off medical devices.

there was agreement on that across parties, but it was stopped by Obama's politics.



Mojo2 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Holy fuck.
> ...



also the people who were prochoice until ACA was pushed to legislate health care choices.
trying to figure out how this bill is in any way "prochoice" has sent me into depression, worrying if I was insane for thinking this was self-contradictory AGAINST prochoice.
nobody else has been able to explain it to me how is this prochoice. just crazymaking!

My friend Ray Hill who is a liberal's liberal is the one who assured me that he and all the Singlepayer advocates he knows including the largest lobby group in Texas are all
against ACA. but because the opposition is for different reasons than the  GOP and Tea Party opposition, they are not aligning or working together to stop the ACA mandates.

if sides don't agree what to replace it with, so we are stuck with ACA while they conflict.

this is why I advocate separating policy by party so everyone can fund their own programs.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame  either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.


The Republicans can't do a damn thing about it. Period. They tried to pass the budget with everything funded but ObamaCare and the Senate said NO. All or nothing. So they were going to get blamed yet again for a government shutdown. The people voted stupidly so quit blaming the GOP!


----------



## william the wie (Feb 18, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame  either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.
> ...


Yeah, it was insane to reelect Obama in 2012 but the establishment GOP handed that election to him with the D-lite Romney.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 18, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up.  This is part of the democrat war on work.
> ...



What you don't get is that the government has no right to do that. A private company could fire the four and shouldn't have to justify it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Yeah, it was insane to reelect Obama in 2012 but the establishment GOP handed that election to him with the D-lite Romney.


Romney won the nomination by state elections. The establishment GOP rigged them? I agree he wasn't conservative enough but it's the party's preference to be Democrat lite that's the cause. They also have a hostile media to deal with but I think the right guy could bust through, like Reagan.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 18, 2014)

Iceweasel said:
			
		

> Yep, Bush was no fiscal conservative. You blamed it all on two unfunded wars but didn't supply any support, remember? Looks like Medicare and Social Security went up quite a bit, how does that not factor in? Those are massive programs.


That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
Most of the USMB veterans here know about the unfunded wars and how Bush used emergency funds to circumvent normal channels of appropriation. Medicare Part D was also unfunded and implemented by the Bush administration. Where did that unfunded war money come from? It was borrowed from the general fund which, by law, holds surplus monies from federal agencies like the Social Security Trust funds.  An IOU was generated to keep track of the debt owed by those transactions. So, since the wars were not budgeted, they were unfunded.



			
				Iceweasel said:
			
		

> Yep, and the housing crisis started the whole downward slope. Then Obama came in and spent more. Your point is what exactly?



Its time for you to answer a question. What did Obama spend that even came close tot Bushs wars and Medicare part D 



			
				Iceweasel said:
			
		

> How were the wars unfunded? You left that out. Congress passed it and wrote the checks, how is it all Bush's fault anyway? But you have yet to demonstrate how the wars were the problem, that's a conclusion you made.



See above and also use your goggle search engine. Congress may pass a law or budgetary concern but the presidents signature is what makes it law.

Please read this link. It will save me from having to respond to a lot of dumb questions.

Study Criticizes Bush Approach to War Funding, Calls for Changes


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 19, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
> Most of the USMB veterans here know about the unfunded wars and how Bush used emergency funds to circumvent normal channels of appropriation.


I'm new here but not new to talking to smug superior liberals. You just contradicted yourself, if emergency funds were used then how is that mean it's unfunded? And like I said earlier, Congress passes the budgets. It wasn't included in normal defense spending but they did indeed fund the wars with suplimental bills. Not does not translate into "unfunded".


> Medicare Part D was also unfunded and implemented by the Bush administration. Where did that unfunded war money come from? It was borrowed from the general fund which, by law, holds surplus monies from federal agencies like the Social Security Trust funds.  An IOU was generated to keep track of the debt owed by those transactions. So, since the wars were not budgeted, they were unfunded.


The military operations couldn't come from the typical funding since we weren't previously at war. Duh.


> Its time for you to answer a question. What did Obama spend that even came close tot Bushs wars and Medicare part D


Start with the "stimulus" spending. 800 billion in one shot. With nothing to show for it. 


> See above and also use your goggle search engine. Congress may pass a law or budgetary concern but the presidents signature is what makes it law.


We are discussing your charge that the wars were unfunded but congress voted on the actions, now you claim they didn't know we would have to pay for it and it's Bush's fault. Grow up.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 20, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
> ...



REALLY? Only on Faux news that parrots like you mimic...grow an adult brain...


The stimulus act was a success  and we need another

Republican animus toward the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, popularly known as the stimulus, hasnt decreased over time. Today marks five years since President Obama signed the legislation into law, and Republicans from Marco Rubio to John Cornyn are using the anniversary to bash not only the bill but also the very idea of government spending.

Its important to knock down these conservative claims about the stimulus, which havent gotten any more factually accurate over time. And its not just a matter of correcting the historical record  people shouldnt be made to be afraid of proactive government intervention, which the economy undoubtedly needs more of.

Many of the things Republicans are saying today about the stimulus bill are predicated on a similar and presumably deliberate misunderstanding: that the legislation was meant to permanently fix the economy.

Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isnt growing fast enough  proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems, said Rubio.

But the stimulus bill was meant to provide a _temporary_ bump to the economy  and it did just that. Here are the facts:

Gross domestic product and total payroll employment were at historic lows when the stimulus passed, and private-sector layoffs were peaking. All three of these very important indicators began to turn around almost exactly the moment the stimulus passed. (The Center for American Progress has some great charts here.)


The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 was as much as 3.8 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
 

At the end of 2010, there were approximately 2.5 million more jobs in the country that wouldnt have existed without the stimulus, according to Mark Zandi of Moodys Economy.com.
 

The bill kept nearly 6 million people out of poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Most of the spending measures in the stimulus bill have expired, but the point is that it did what it was supposed to do. For Republicans to simply say the economy is still bad, so the stimulus was a failure is a cheap misdirection.

The other main argument against the bill has been that it puts the country too deeply in debt. But critics are wrong again. The stimulus act only exacerbated the long-term budget problem to a very small degree  it added just 3 percent to the budget shortfall through 2050, according to CBPP.



CBO reports stimulus package was a major economic success

7:58 am November 23, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office has released its latest assessment of the 2009 stimulus package and the economic impact of its various components.

According to the CBO analysis of stimulus provisions:

     They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent (see Table 1),
     They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
     They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
     They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 20, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> REALLY? Only on Faux news that parrots like you mimic...grow an adult brain...


You say Faux news then tell me I'm a parrot and grow a brain? Are you trolling for an opposite view retard to argue with?


> Many of the things Republicans are saying today about the stimulus bill are predicated on a similar and presumably deliberate misunderstanding: that the legislation was meant to permanently fix the economy.


That's a lie. The propagandist immediately shifted into a strwman after making a series of rhetorical insults against his political enemies. And that's good enough for you?


> Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isnt growing fast enough  proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems, said Rubio.


And he's right. And unemployment is actually worse than it looks if you consider all those who dropped out of the work force with the diminished opportunity and all those underemployed since part time work is all they can find.


> But the stimulus bill was meant to provide a _temporary_ bump to the economy  and it did just that. Here are the facts:


And a lot of that money went to bs projects, predictably into the hands of those who helped the election turn out right.


> Gross domestic product and total payroll employment were at historic lows when the stimulus passed, and private-sector layoffs were peaking. All three of these very important indicators began to turn around almost exactly the moment the stimulus passed. (The Center for American Progress has some great charts here.)


That's assuming a lot. They need evidence not charts that may or may not have anything to do with who's pockets the 800 billion went into.


> [*]The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 was as much as 3.8 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus.


LOL. And they arrived at that...how?


> [*]At the end of 2010, there were approximately 2.5 million more jobs in the country that wouldnt have existed without the stimulus, according to Mark Zandi of Moodys Economy.com.


And he knows that ...how?


> [*]The bill kept nearly 6 million people out of poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).


And they know that ...how?


> Most of the spending measures in the stimulus bill have expired, but the point is that it did what it was supposed to do. For Republicans to simply say the economy is still bad, so the stimulus was a failure is a cheap misdirection.


That's a cheap misdirection. Nobody exercises the tactic more than the left. It's what they do. The economy is still bad and spending 800 billion dollars on kickbacks, pet projects and bailing out unions and government workers is not a recipe for lasting effects. Someone running a hot dog stand could have told you that. 

But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:
			
		

> We are discussing your charge that the wars were unfunded but congress voted on the actions, now you claim they didn't know we would have to pay for it and it's Bush's fault. Grow up.



You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what* unfunded *means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.

Here is a graph based on CBO info to help you along the long route to better understanding.


----------



## Politico (Feb 21, 2014)

Jesus where do you people get this crap.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 21, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?



No WE weren't. You don't even know who you are talking to. Maybe it's all the chopping up of posts that causes your confusion. The right wing compartmental mind... and it is very hard to compartmentalize a PEA.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what* unfunded *means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.


You spouted off that the wars were unfunded. Which you can't support. So maybe you should think first, then type.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 21, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?
> ...


Sorry, it's hard to tell you two apart. But feel free to answer the rest of my response to your partisan assertions.


----------



## JQPublic1 (Feb 22, 2014)

Iceweasel said:


> JQPublic1 said:
> 
> 
> > You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what* unfunded *means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.
> ...



Oh, yeah, I have "supported '  the fact that Bush's two wars were unfunded. You  are just too obtuse to see what is right in front of you. Why don't you write your Republican congressperson  and ask him/her?


----------



## william the wie (Feb 22, 2014)

Unfunded excludes taxes, inflation and borrowing as sources of funding, you are making a source of funding argument.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 22, 2014)

JQPublic1 said:


> Oh, yeah, I have "supported '  the fact that Bush's two wars were unfunded. You  are just too obtuse to see what is right in front of you. Why don't you write your Republican congressperson  and ask him/her?


You made the assertion anyway. Congress budgets and pays the bills and they passed the resolution so you don't even know what you're babbling about. Just because it didn't come out of the standard defense fund does not mean it was unfunded.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 22, 2014)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...



Just a few examples:

Unilaterally pushing back the date on Obamacare.   Exempting people from Obamacare.   

Making recess appointments when congress is not in recess.

Completely ignoring federal immigration laws and suing states who abide by them.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 23, 2014)

We need to overturn every damn Jackboot thing this man and his comrades in arms has put on our necks with his abuse of our government and every agency needs to be DEFUNDED to show them they aren't a government outside of Congress and we the peoples Representives


----------



## william the wie (Feb 23, 2014)

Phase out is politically possible, repeal is not. When the national subsidies end in 2017 the result will be two way migration that will hurt the Democratic base severely.


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

G.T. said:


> Anecdotes don't mean much. Most Auditors are highly trained professionals, I've worked with them on several occasions.



You've been lucky. I dealt with the IRS under an old employer. They tied up his resources for weeks, his bookkeeper and secretary, one of his offices, and made it very clear (and without shame, I might add) that they weren't done until they found something. They talked to him, a man they did not know, like he was a criminal ... and he wasn't. He was a good decent man ... not even conservative


----------



## Tresha91203 (Feb 23, 2014)

g5000 said:


> I crack my eggs in the middle, like any sane person does.



Moderate! You must be weeded out!


----------

