An Admittedly Niave Question About the Affordable Health Care Act

[Ernie S.]

The last I heard, the administration was denying that this was happening on an appreciable scale.

Maybe it isn't, although I would find that hard to believe. One of the most established principles of human nature is self interest.

I don't think they consciously decided to do something which they knew would reduce employment . . .

Neither do I. That is simply preposterous.




Lies or mistaken judgment? The end result of either is generally pretty much the same, but there is a world of difference between a lie and something done out of misinformation or just plain stupidity.

They just didn't think enough.

I agree with you there. That is pretty much the whole point of the OP and of this thread. They should have seen the consequences of setting a 30-hour minimum. Apparently they did not. Of course, the Right is screaming they did it intentionally, but that simply makes no sense.

it was in direct contradiction to democratic principles, and it created a big mess.

My experience has been that just about anything that offends the sensibilities of the Republican Noise Machine is going to create a "big mess," simply because of the unprecedented ability of the Right to do exactly that - create a big mess - whenever things aren't going the way the Right would like them to go.

There ya go George; talking about the Right's ability to create a mess in a thread about how fucked up the ACA is. Are you being intentionally ironic or unintentionally moronic?

 

[oreo]

The last I heard, the administration was denying that this was happening on an appreciable scale.

Maybe it isn't, although I would find that hard to believe. One of the most established principles of human nature is self interest.



Neither do I. That is simply preposterous.




Lies or mistaken judgment? The end result of either is generally pretty much the same, but there is a world of difference between a lie and something done out of misinformation or just plain stupidity.



I agree with you there. That is pretty much the whole point of the OP and of this thread. They should have seen the consequences of setting a 30-hour minimum. Apparently they did not. Of course, the Right is screaming they did it intentionally, but that simply makes no sense.

it was in direct contradiction to democratic principles, and it created a big mess.

My experience has been that just about anything that offends the sensibilities of the Republican Noise Machine is going to create a "big mess," simply because of the unprecedented ability of the Right to do exactly that - create a big mess - whenever things aren't going the way the Right would like them to go.

There ya go George; talking about the Right's ability to create a mess in a thread about how fucked up the ACA is. Are you being intentionally ironic or unintentionally moronic?

I disagree with the point that (no one) thought about the consequences of Obamacare regarding what employers would do. These democrat politicians met with business people--corporations and unions to get an opinion before they signed off on Obamacare. In fact-- Obama made a deal with the Unions-to get them to go along with the bill before it passed-that private sector employers would be required to meet the mandate 2 years before union employers would have too. Now even the Unions have done an about face on Obamacare.

Labor unions were among the strongest supporters of the Affordable Care Act when it passed in 2010. They spent millions of dollars in ad buys supporting the bill, pressured wavering Democrats in Congress to pass it, and followed up with support for those Democrats in the November elections.

Three years later, union leaders say the bill they fought to pass now threatens to hurt their own members. At issue are the collectively bargained, multi-employer insurance plans that more than 15 million unionized workers access under the Taft-Hartley Act. Those plans currently allow workers like builders and electricians to change jobs among participating employers and stay in the same health-insurance plan. Because many of those plans currently allow workers like builders and electricians to change jobs among participating employers and stay in the same health-insurance plan. Because many of the jobs involve manual labor, the plans usually account for injuries and repetitive stresses, benefits that unions say their workers sought instead of higher wages.

But this could change. Under the Affordable Care Act, small companies could choose to stop covering workers through the union agreements and send their through the union agreements and send their workers to the state-based exchanges instead. Through these exchanges, workers would pay lower premiums, thanks to federal government subsidies. But labor leaders fear that the workers who retain union plans will end up paying higher premiums, since there will be fewer people in the plans, and coverage could be less generous. No one knows for sure that this is how it will play out—companies could very well decide to continue in the union plans and keep the status quo—but unions are predicting the worst.

Obama?s Labor Pains: Unions Rage Against the Affordable Care Act - The Daily Beast

So YES they knew what the consequences were going to be before they signed off on Obamacare. Anyone with half a brain--knows that when you add costly government regulations onto business in this country--that the very first thing to go--are going to be employees.

Glitchy picture URL deleted.

 

[syrenn]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

oh i am rather sure they knew this was exactly what was going to happen george..... and did not care. They were hoping for it.

it accomplishes several things in one step. The more people forced into their pet project the louder they can crow "victory" It also forces people into a position of being on the dole....and reliant on the government. No one will vote against their entitlements........

 

[Oldstyle]

They know and understand what they are doing. They simply don't care.

Their hostility to a healthy business environment is only one aspect of their powerlust. They want it all, no matter whether freedom gets crushed and regardless of whose lives they ruin.

You don't really believe that, do you? It would not be in the Democrat's best interest to intentionally foster unumployment.

Let's not forget what this thread is about. It is about how the Obama administration could miss an obvious point that, unless corrected, can and will contribute to unemployment.

Have you just now figured out that the Obama Administration could care less about people like your grandson? Jesus, George...wake up and smell the coffee!

 

[Oldstyle]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I suppose we all must begin to anticipate such behaviors since Reagan transformed avarice (greed) from a deadly sin to a virtue. Yes, it is my money, and I'll choose to spend it on items and services offered by those providers whose values I admire.

LOL...now Reagan is responsible for employers cutting back full time hours? Seriously?

 

[syrenn]

You are making the false assumptions that this was unforeseeable and that progressives give a crap about the little guy, like your grandson.

I don't think it was unforseeable at all. I think it was entirely forseeable. That's the whole point of my OP. They should have foreseen it and should have taken steps to prevent it.

You did read my OP, right?

You know i love ya.... but just wondering george..... did you vote for obama?

if so..... you should have foreseen this coming.....

 

[oreo]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

oh i am rather sure they knew this was exactly what was going to happen george..... and did not care. They were hoping for it.

it accomplishes several things in one step. The more people forced into their pet project the louder they can crow "victory" It also forces people into a position of being on the dole....and reliant on the government. No one will vote against their entitlements........

Yep--49 million people still on food stamps--when were supposedly in an economic recovery kind of says it all.

Obamacare is just that. The majority of enrollees get their insurance for free under Medicaid--and then all the subsidized insurance being purchased by lower incomes--kind of tells us what the Democrat party is all about. It's their way of buying votes. However it's very harmful to the working middle class of this country--because this time it is they that are paying for it through much higher premiums.

No one is going to vote against free stuff that is paid for by others.

 

[Political Junky]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Why do people think this has anything to do with ObamaCare? Nothing new here. Same thing has been happening ever since the laws were passed that required employers to give benefits to full time employees.

WalMart has been doing it for years.

 

[oreo]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I suppose we all must begin to anticipate such behaviors since Reagan transformed avarice (greed) from a deadly sin to a virtue. Yes, it is my money, and I'll choose to spend it on items and services offered by those providers whose values I admire.

LOL...now Reagan is responsible for employers cutting back full time hours? Seriously?

A thumb sucking lil Einstein liberal will say anything to defend Obama. Reagan no matter how untrue is one of their favorite targets--even though they weren't alive then.

 

[syrenn]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Because this bill isn't about helping people with their health care.
It's about Government controlling all of the health care system and controlling us.
Did you listen to Nancy Pelosi who thinks that it is a good thing that people work only 30 hours a week? "You have more time to be with your kids and family".
It is a lefty utopian ideology.
Look at France, Spain and Greece and their working hours for that answer. They all said the exact same thing that Pelosi said.

I wouldn't go this far. I think the health care plan was (and is) very much meant to help people with their health insurance problems. God knows, leaving it to the private sector was not getting it done. It just seems to me they failed to see something that was very obvious. If you create a 30-hour per week threshold, above which the employer is going to have to provide health insurance, it doesn't take an economic genius to figure out what employers are going to do here . . .

George...i have been going with a friend of mine to deal with the hoops of this bullshit.....it is one huge nightmare!

The bottom line....the hospitals, social workers who were trying to figure it out and staffing at medical (where they sent him to deal with obamacare fuck ups) all agree ..... the only people this is helping are the people who will pay nothing.... What it IS doing is forcing people into plans they cant afford to pay. They all agree that the "intent" was good.... but the reality of it is horrible.

it has been a TRUE eye opener seeing it all first hand. I have sat and listened to the people in the waiting rooms...i have listened to his room mate in the hospital flabbergasted that his new obamacare insurance is not going to cover is cancer drugs....and those drugs or one round are going to cost him 9k out of pocket..... i have listened to my sister about the "loophole" for pre existing conditions......

all if have to say is if you love your grandkids george..... vote for however is going to overturn ACA.

 

[syrenn]

They know and understand what they are doing. They simply don't care.

Their hostility to a healthy business environment is only one aspect of their powerlust. They want it all, no matter whether freedom gets crushed and regardless of whose lives they ruin.

You don't really believe that, do you? It would not be in the Democrat's best interest to intentionally foster unumployment.

Let's not forget what this thread is about. It is about how the Obama administration could miss an obvious point that, unless corrected, can and will contribute to unemployment.

of course it would george......

the more people dependent on the government....the more secure their voting base is.

pelosi said it ..... welfare is the biggest bang for the buck.

 

[Mojo2]

"Liberals are very much like flighty women or high strung children."

Oh no you di'int, Mojo!

I don't consider women undesireable or unattractive or unnecessary or incapable.

But flighty women?

Yes. I stand by that part of my statement.

I don't consider you or any of the female Conservatives here to be flighty.

If the shoe fits, then you'd have a beef with me.

But if that shoe fit you would likely be a Liberal.

And you aren't.

There.

(Did I manage to extricate my foot from my mouth?)

Nope. Sorry.

The press are now going to run with your stereotypical characterization of women and all the substance of your discussion will be disregarded.

I guess I'll owe you a big one.

Redeemable at your request.

 

[oreo]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Why do people think this has anything to do with ObamaCare? Nothing new here. Same thing has been happening ever since the laws were passed that required employers to give benefits to full time employees.

WalMart has been doing it for years.

Well the law passed 4-1/2 years ago. Corporations knew about Obamacare back then and started getting ready for it. But--If you'll look at the list of large corporations that have done it recently it will tell a much different story. They have been getting ready for Obamacare--and they had to cut employees hours prior to Obamacare hitting their front door.

The list of companies moving to cut hours for part-time workers continues to grow, as employers look to keep staffers below the 30-hour threshold set by the Affordable Care Act.

The Obama administration announced in July that it would delay the so-called employer mandate until 2015. ObamaCare requires that companies with 50 or more employees provide health insurance benefits to every full-time worker, considered to be anyone who logs an average of 30 or more hours a week.

Employers will be hit with a penalty for each full-time employee who isn’t covered and instead purchases insurance through a federally subsidized exchange.

Although the administration delayed implementing the rule until 2015, the penalties for that year will be based on staffing levels recorded in the second half of 2014 at the latest.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/industri...bamacare-companies-move-to-cut-workers-hours/

Because Democrats wisely recently delayed the employer mandate-(until after the mid-term elections)--the deadline to cut to workers hours actually started in the 2nd half of 2013--to meet the old deadline. Now because of the employer mandate delay they have until the 4th quarter of this year to make their cuts in hours.

Target Joins Home Depot, Walmart, Others In Cutting Health Care For Part-Timers, Citing Obamacare - Forbes

Now really I can't think of any employer with under 50 employees that is going to invest and grow their business--which would require hiring more employees--that is looking at the Obamacare employer mandate. They simply won't do it.

And this is why Obamacare is the biggest JOB KILLER in this country today.

 

[Papageorgio]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

I thought they did try to insert some clause that companies had to have a reason to downsize so that it wasn't to avoid the mandate. Not sure if that applies to cutting down hours, but at least it was to cutting people from positions.

There were a lot of things they didn't anticipate.

It is not the job or function of federal govt to regulate personal health care on this level,
so this is to be expected. This is why the Constitution was written to limit federal govt to the basic functions, and leave the policies and programs to States and People.

not designed to micromanage all these details of business, especially not relationships
within companies and contracts with insurance between companies and individuals.

The last person who taught me Constitutional law formally was my eighth grade history teacher; and apparently that was enough to instill in me a better sense of the process of Constitutional government than our sitting president with a law degree from Harvard.

so sad. all these complications are why federal govt should remain limited to specified duty.
we are supposed to manage our own business policies locally, not regulate by Congress.

All well and good, but when the haves are screwing the have nots up one side and down the other, then it may be time for the government to step in. Of course the haves will scream "government oppression" but maybe they deserve exactly what they are getting.

I kind of think that's the theory here. Way too many people unable to afford health care under the former (privately run) system. What about those people? I think the new system is designed to help them, i.e., to make it more difficult for the haves to stick it to them.

Insurance for me and my family, worked out will all the minor stuff I paid out of pocket, yearly physical and flu bugs, broken bone ect...today I am paying $500 a month more, and have coverage for flu bugs, physicals and so on. That's great but it isn't close the old plan fit family and I well. Now, we have to budget over $800 in health care. This whole idea was not thought out. It was rammed through an irresponsible Congress that wants us to read and figure it out. Not smart for Congress to do, it hurts many Americans and Congress isn't interested in any kind of fix.

No one thought this mess through, it was irresponsible of Congress, and it gets worse every day.

 

[Papageorgio]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

George, this healthcare package is going to cost the small company I work at, an additional $200,000 to $300,000 when it kicks in. I have always denied talking company plans and stuck to my simple plan, now when it is offered, I'll have to take to save money on my end.

This is not good for small businesses with 150 employees. Of course the cost is going to be added to the consumers cost, businesses can't afford to eat the cost.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mac1958]

George, this healthcare package is going to cost the small company I work at, an additional $200,000 to $300,000 when it kicks in. I have always denied talking company plans and stuck to my simple plan, now when it is offered, I'll have to take to save money on my end.

This is not good for small businesses with 150 employees. Of course the cost is going to be added to the consumers cost, businesses can't afford to eat the cost.

They don't care.

Remember, business is evil and business owners are rich and greedy.

Every business has a safe in the corner where they stash zillions of dollars with which they light their fat-cat cigars.

They're all just rolling in it, and hoping that everyone else suffers 'n stuff.

.

 

[peach174]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Because this bill isn't about helping people with their health care.
It's about Government controlling all of the health care system and controlling us.
Did you listen to Nancy Pelosi who thinks that it is a good thing that people work only 30 hours a week? "You have more time to be with your kids and family".
It is a lefty utopian ideology.
Look at France, Spain and Greece and their working hours for that answer. They all said the exact same thing that Pelosi said.

I wouldn't go this far. I think the health care plan was (and is) very much meant to help people with their health insurance problems. God knows, leaving it to the private sector was not getting it done. It just seems to me they failed to see something that was very obvious. If you create a 30-hour per week threshold, above which the employer is going to have to provide health insurance, it doesn't take an economic genius to figure out what employers are going to do here . . .

That's because of the laws and regulations that were passed and it prohibited the private insurances to do what they wanted to do.

 

[Smilebong]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

oh i am rather sure they knew this was exactly what was going to happen george..... and did not care. They were hoping for it.

it accomplishes several things in one step. The more people forced into their pet project the louder they can crow "victory" It also forces people into a position of being on the dole....and reliant on the government. No one will vote against their entitlements........

How true. Dems want everyone relying on the government.

 

[oreo]

I thought they did try to insert some clause that companies had to have a reason to downsize so that it wasn't to avoid the mandate. Not sure if that applies to cutting down hours, but at least it was to cutting people from positions.

There were a lot of things they didn't anticipate.

It is not the job or function of federal govt to regulate personal health care on this level,
so this is to be expected. This is why the Constitution was written to limit federal govt to the basic functions, and leave the policies and programs to States and People.

not designed to micromanage all these details of business, especially not relationships
within companies and contracts with insurance between companies and individuals.

The last person who taught me Constitutional law formally was my eighth grade history teacher; and apparently that was enough to instill in me a better sense of the process of Constitutional government than our sitting president with a law degree from Harvard.

so sad. all these complications are why federal govt should remain limited to specified duty.
we are supposed to manage our own business policies locally, not regulate by Congress.

All well and good, but when the haves are screwing the have nots up one side and down the other, then it may be time for the government to step in. Of course the haves will scream "government oppression" but maybe they deserve exactly what they are getting.

I kind of think that's the theory here. Way too many people unable to afford health care under the former (privately run) system. What about those people? I think the new system is designed to help them, i.e., to make it more difficult for the haves to stick it to them.

Insurance for me and my family, worked out will all the minor stuff I paid out of pocket, yearly physical and flu bugs, broken bone ect...today I am paying $500 a month more, and have coverage for flu bugs, physicals and so on. That's great but it isn't close the old plan fit family and I well. Now, we have to budget over $800 in health care. This whole idea was not thought out. It was rammed through an irresponsible Congress that wants us to read and figure it out. Not smart for Congress to do, it hurts many Americans and Congress isn't interested in any kind of fix.

No one thought this mess through, it was irresponsible of Congress, and it gets worse every day.

The way it was set up--is just bat s... crazy. For instance we have people in this country that are retired--(younger than 65) that are considered well-off and simply because they had no real gains in their investments in 2013--they are being forced onto Medicaid--when they were simply looking for a policy that they could purchase that was affordable to them. This is happening often at the protest of the individual looking for a policy.

Obamacare is only based on "earned or investment income from the prior year." So in fact, a person could own a multi-million dollar home--have diamonds, cash and other valuables in a safety deposit box in a bank. You could have a stock account which net value exceeds several hundred thousand dollars and still because a person didn't do that well in it that year or took a capital gains loss that year--they are being forced onto Medicaid.Those that didn't file an income tax return the prior year--because they didn't "earn" that much are asked to "guess" how much they will make in 2014--to base their premium.--LOL

Here is a very good example of this happening.

The White House has repeatedly maintained that ObamaCare expands options, a mantra that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated on Friday. "They'll have choices they didn't have in the past, including a range of options when it comes to levels of coverage," he said.

But those options don't apply to the millions who will be directed to Medicaid, many of them hardly impoverished.

"The system will automatically sign them up for Medicaid, even if they don't want to be on Medicaid," says James Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "That's what's happening. So a lot of people are getting signed up for Medicaid just by virtue of what their income is."

A case in point is a Virginia family, who asked to remain anonymous, but who came to Fox News with documents that demonstrate an apparent absurdity with Medicaid selection.

A case in point is a Virginia family, who asked to remain anonymous, but who came to Fox News with documents that demonstrate an apparent absurdity with Medicaid selection.

The father owns a $5 million house - entirely paid for. His kids attend expensive private schools. He owns three cars, but because he has earned his fortune and has stopped working , and his wife's new start-up business has yet to produce an income stream, he is considered by the Healthcare.gov website to have no income.

The website put him on Medicaid. He protested in the website's chat area. A screen grab of the dialogue reads: "Let 60 minutes show up in front of my 5 million dollars paid for house and tell America that this guy is on {Medicade} and that the American people are paying {fro} it!"

A navigator replied, "I do understand your frustration, however I have no other options to offer."

ObamaCare forcing people into Medicaid | Fox News

THIS IS WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS BEING INVOLVED IN NATION WIDE HEALTH CARE. [ They're stupid

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I just learned that my grandson is quitting his job as a waiter at Applebees because they have cut his hours to 30 per week. They have done the same to all of their employees. No more than 30 hours per week for anyone. Of course, this is so that Applebees will not have to provide health insurance for its employees. It would appear that Applebees is not the only corporation that is doing this.

In times of severe unemployment throughout the nation, this is obviously a very bad trend.

Why didn't the folks who drafted the current health care legislation anticipate that this would happen, and have a provision in there that would close this loophole?

Hold the phone here. I just remembered something.

According to Grand Duchess Pelosi, this is a tremendous opportunity for your grandson to be an artist, photographer, play his guitar or start that small business he has always dreamed of, without being "job locked" to his crummy job, for far too little pay and opportunity, at Applebees.

According to her, you and your grandson should be dancing in the streets with glee.

What are you, some kind of ingrates?