Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's the problem right there,
but all government programs are for somebody's safety or well being.
No...many are designed to do EXACTLY what you applauded NYCarbineer for saying...they make people's lives better.
The federal government has increased the level used to determine poverty.....poverty should be "unable to sustain a roof over ones head and food in ones stomach"......you have seen the reports, I am sure.....now one with a family of 4 with an apartment of 3 bedrooms, AC, 2 TV's and a computer can still be deemed as "needy" and worthy of welfare and/or foodstamps.
That is not for their safety...or even their health...that is designed to make them more comfortable....make their lives "better" as NYCarbineer said....and that is where I disagree with the way government interferes.
To be frank, with the exception of the mentally and physically challanged individuals, all people should ONLY receive assistance if they can not house, clothe and feed themselves.....from there they need to learn to sacrifice wants so they can move forward and slowly gain their "wants" WHEN THEY DO NOT NEED TO SACRIFICE their needs to get those wants.
Sure, you can come up with reasons why everyone should have a cell phone....but 20 years ago, we all got by without them. You can try to convince me that everyone needs AC...but years ago, I grew up in the NYC area without one. You can say everyone needs a computer....but years ago, we all got by without one.
It is not that bI dont care about those that struggle. I do. Heck, I was homeless at one time in my life. I know what it is like to wonder where your next meal is coming from. It sux and I wouldnt wish it on anyone...and I support those safety nets.
But lets be real.....a high speed computer is by no means a necessity. If you can afford to buy one, you can afford to feed your family. If you cant afford to feed your family, then you cant afford to buy a computer.
When we have achieved 100% employment, I'll understand your position, but we haven't.
Homeless people don't have access to a land line. Hard to accept a call back for a job...
There are people who already HAD a tv, a microwave, a computer, and other things who are newly unemployed / in dire straits. Should they give up the beds and sleep on the floor too, in order that they LOOK needy enough?
Kids without computers are at a distinct disadvantage in a school system that makes researching (and reading!) their work something that is graded more generously on both levels. Additionally, when would be employers ask someone for an e-mail address, they're AS less likely to hire the poor slob without one as frequently as they would be the poor slob without the roof and mailing address, and you must know that most employers discriminate in favor of the already employed applicant, don't you?
It isn't as simple as people who comfort themselves with images of the unworthy like to think. Its good that you were homeless once upon a time (so was I), not that I wish you ill even in retrospect, but so at least you have an idea what it is like to work out of a hole. Still, I think that reality has changed so much over time that you wouldn't recognize the landscape enough to fully appreciate what it is to negotiate it.
I see that no one has given any facts disputing what I have said. Saying oh you are wrong is an opinionI have not seen you bring any info from the other side to counter other than to say it is wrong...and that is putting it kindly. By all means give some real data to refute the reality that is happening around you.In that post Ravi asked you to:
So you, the one so cocksure of her position responds:
which is the boilerplate response from those who don't have the first clue what they've read.
Then you haven't read my posts. Not my fault, yours.
What is it?So I take it no one knows what the big flaming mistake in the OP is. This whole topic is premised on a giant lie.
.
First, I will quote the relevant bits from Section 1513 of the PPACA. Then, I will explain what it means.
You need this:
SEC. 1513. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE.
(a) LARGE EMPLOYERS NOT OFFERING HEALTH COVERAGE.
If
(1) any applicable large employer fails to offer to its fulltime
employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll
in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored
plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2)) for any
month, and
(2) at least one full-time employee of the applicable large
employer has been certified to the employer under section 1411
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as having enrolled
for such month in a qualified health plan with respect
to which an applicable premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction
is allowed or paid with respect to the employee,
then there is hereby imposed on the employer an assessable payment
equal to the product of the applicable payment amount and
the number of individuals employed by the employer as full-time
employees during such month.
And this:
(D) APPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO ASSESSABLE
PENALTIES.
(i) IN GENERAL.The number of individuals employed
by an applicable large employer as full-time
employees during any month shall be reduced by 30
solely for purposes of calculating
(I) the assessable payment under subsection
(a), or
(II) the overall limitation under subsection
(b)(2).
(ii) AGGREGATION.In the case of persons treated
as 1 employer under subparagraph (C)(i), only 1 reduction
under subclause (I) or (II) shall be allowed with
respect to such persons and such reduction shall be allocated
among such persons ratably on the basis of the
number of full-time employees employed by each such
person.
What this means is that a company that does not provide health insurance is susceptible to penalties only if the employees get federal subsidies to buy their health insurance. But in addition to that, to avoid the very kind of disincentive Blue Phantom made up in the OP, whereby an employer with 49 employees decides not to hire more people because it would push him over the 50 employee floor, the second part that I quoted means that for purposes of the penalties, the first 30 employees are not counted toward the penalties.
.
Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
Ha ha! Well Obama claimed he had the answer for everything.
Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
Ha ha! Well Obama claimed he had the answer for everything.
That's why we need government, because government's point is to make people's lives better.
It is?
I think the government's point is to protect the people and to maintain an environment in which we make our OWN lives better.
.
Please tell us what policies you think do that. Macro or micro, or what combination of both.
Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
it does not takie a balancing act to determine the right timing.
The timing of sayinbg to business owners "we are raising your taxes and fining you 2K per employee (above 30) should not be atthe same time when you are saying to those same business owners "there are 25 million people unemployed and we need you to hire them...
Especially after 4 years of less revenue and less income
(FYI...you said the market rebounded.....sure....my 401(k) is not far off from where it was 4 years ago.....BUT THAT IS 4 YEARS OF NO GROWTH......not the end of the world....but thopse business owners have a lot of catching up to do...
Timing GT....I am confused by the timing.
Jarhead, they did get offered incentives.
Just a point of clarification. They did do, what you advised they should do, in that regard.
yes...they are offering incentives....I know....
But to say here is a dollar...but it will cost you 2 dollars in operating costs is by no means enough of an invcentive...in my opinion.
Bear in mind...most business owners have been taking in a lot less over the last 4 years.
They are still licking their wounds..and those are the lucky ones.
Those are not the lucky ones. Theyre the majority. UE is not some dire extreme. Many businesses were swallowed and didnt survive. Most did.
401k's did rebound. Thats not a figment of anyone's imagination.
Corporations did profit at record levels, and stopped their raise-freezes, and all of the people who worked for them went out and started spending money again. GDP is a positive number - we're not growing as fast as we're "Accustomed to," but that's not a dismissive of the point "we're growing."
And as far as being in more debt, as business-owners, I think you should actually do some research on that and see if it's actually true, or if you just imagine that "to be." For real, not being facetious.
I think that the incessant doom and gloom preaching of right wing media, FOR SURE, hurts business and exascerbates any Businessman's uneasiness.
yes...they are offering incentives....I know....
But to say here is a dollar...but it will cost you 2 dollars in operating costs is by no means enough of an invcentive...in my opinion.
Bear in mind...most business owners have been taking in a lot less over the last 4 years.
They are still licking their wounds..and those are the lucky ones.
Those are not the lucky ones. Theyre the majority. UE is not some dire extreme. Many businesses were swallowed and didnt survive. Most did.
401k's did rebound. Thats not a figment of anyone's imagination.
Corporations did profit at record levels, and stopped their raise-freezes, and all of the people who worked for them went out and started spending money again. GDP is a positive number - we're not growing as fast as we're "Accustomed to," but that's not a dismissive of the point "we're growing."
And as far as being in more debt, as business-owners, I think you should actually do some research on that and see if it's actually true, or if you just imagine that "to be." For real, not being facetious.
I think that the incessant doom and gloom preaching of right wing media, FOR SURE, hurts business and exascerbates any Businessman's uneasiness.
In other words ignore the debt, inflation, unemployment in your neighborhood, the rising cost of living and just let the good times roll.
Oh you mean the budget he never proposed? I guess if you don't put one up there it can't be passed or rejected.Everyone thinks that the Balancing act is easy. 'lil ole Washington has to figure out how to be Conducive to Business while also protecting Citizens / consumers. This is a Country of $300 million people. As much as people think that idealogies are blanket answers, they're not.
Ha ha! Well Obama claimed he had the answer for everything.
no he didnt.
but aside from that, are you going to try and say that he got everything he wanted passed?
didnt think so.
Oh you mean the budget he never proposed? I guess if you don't put one up there it can't be passed or rejected.Ha ha! Well Obama claimed he had the answer for everything.
no he didnt.
but aside from that, are you going to try and say that he got everything he wanted passed?
didnt think so.
No...many are designed to do EXACTLY what you applauded NYCarbineer for saying...they make people's lives better.
The federal government has increased the level used to determine poverty.....poverty should be "unable to sustain a roof over ones head and food in ones stomach"......you have seen the reports, I am sure.....now one with a family of 4 with an apartment of 3 bedrooms, AC, 2 TV's and a computer can still be deemed as "needy" and worthy of welfare and/or foodstamps.
That is not for their safety...or even their health...that is designed to make them more comfortable....make their lives "better" as NYCarbineer said....and that is where I disagree with the way government interferes.
To be frank, with the exception of the mentally and physically challanged individuals, all people should ONLY receive assistance if they can not house, clothe and feed themselves.....from there they need to learn to sacrifice wants so they can move forward and slowly gain their "wants" WHEN THEY DO NOT NEED TO SACRIFICE their needs to get those wants.
Sure, you can come up with reasons why everyone should have a cell phone....but 20 years ago, we all got by without them. You can try to convince me that everyone needs AC...but years ago, I grew up in the NYC area without one. You can say everyone needs a computer....but years ago, we all got by without one.
It is not that bI dont care about those that struggle. I do. Heck, I was homeless at one time in my life. I know what it is like to wonder where your next meal is coming from. It sux and I wouldnt wish it on anyone...and I support those safety nets.
But lets be real.....a high speed computer is by no means a necessity. If you can afford to buy one, you can afford to feed your family. If you cant afford to feed your family, then you cant afford to buy a computer.
When we have achieved 100% employment, I'll understand your position, but we haven't.
Homeless people don't have access to a land line. Hard to accept a call back for a job...
I made it clear that homel;ess people deserve the safety nets
There are people who already HAD a tv, a microwave, a computer, and other things who are newly unemployed / in dire straits. Should they give up the beds and sleep on the floor too, in order that they LOOK needy enough?
If losing a job for a year WITH unemployment meant that you can no longer feed your family, then you should not have had that TV, miocrowave, etc. My point is, people do not prepare. Just becuase you have 100 dollars in your pocket and only 80 of it is for needs, does not mean to spend the other 20 on wants
Kids without computers are at a distinct disadvantage in a school system that makes researching (and reading!) their work something that is graded more generously on both levels. Additionally, when would be employers ask someone for an e-mail address, they're AS less likely to hire the poor slob without one as frequently as they would be the poor slob without the roof and mailing address, and you must know that most employers discriminate in favor of the already employed applicant, don't you?
First the computers....I used to donate every year my uised company comiuters to our local library. All have access to the library for computer use.
As for employers discriminating against those unemnployed. Heck yeah...it is real. It is sad, but it is not discrimination. It is smart business decisions...unfortunately, but true. One who is unemployed is more likely to take a job for the sake of takling a job....and I support that. But one who takes a jhob for the sake of taking a job is mopre likely toleave that job when a "better one" comes up. But one who LEAVES a job for a job is one who is giving something up and more likely to bne there for a longer period of time. I am not saying it is right or wrong....but you can not deny it is smart business. Sux...but true.
It isn't as simple as people who comfort themselves with images of the unworthy like to think. Its good that you were homeless once upon a time (so was I), not that I wish you ill even in retrospect, but so at least you have an idea what it is like to work out of a hole. Still, I think that reality has changed so much over time that you wouldn't recognize the landscape enough to fully appreciate what it is to negotiate it.
look...being poor sux.....but being poor isnt the end of the world......and I am not only a true believer in the theory that being poor can make you rich if you learn from it...I am an actual success story.
It is why I preach as I do. I experienced it.
It is?
I think the government's point is to protect the people and to maintain an environment in which we make our OWN lives better.
.
Please tell us what policies you think do that. Macro or micro, or what combination of both.
A few examples off the top of my pointy head:
That's a start.
- Lead by example, stressing independence over dependence
- Minimize financial roadblocks to people such as income taxes, especially for the middle class.
- Maximize efficiencies in regulation by understanding that MORE regulation is not necessarily BETTER regulation; effectiveness is the key
- Minimize redundancies in regulation
- Maximize incentives for effort and risk-taking through the tax system
- Promote a culture of effort, self-discipline and responsibility at every opportunity
.
When we have achieved 100% employment, I'll understand your position, but we haven't.
Homeless people don't have access to a land line. Hard to accept a call back for a job...
I made it clear that homel;ess people deserve the safety nets
There are people who already HAD a tv, a microwave, a computer, and other things who are newly unemployed / in dire straits. Should they give up the beds and sleep on the floor too, in order that they LOOK needy enough?
If losing a job for a year WITH unemployment meant that you can no longer feed your family, then you should not have had that TV, miocrowave, etc. My point is, people do not prepare. Just becuase you have 100 dollars in your pocket and only 80 of it is for needs, does not mean to spend the other 20 on wants
Kids without computers are at a distinct disadvantage in a school system that makes researching (and reading!) their work something that is graded more generously on both levels. Additionally, when would be employers ask someone for an e-mail address, they're AS less likely to hire the poor slob without one as frequently as they would be the poor slob without the roof and mailing address, and you must know that most employers discriminate in favor of the already employed applicant, don't you?
First the computers....I used to donate every year my uised company comiuters to our local library. All have access to the library for computer use.
As for employers discriminating against those unemnployed. Heck yeah...it is real. It is sad, but it is not discrimination. It is smart business decisions...unfortunately, but true. One who is unemployed is more likely to take a job for the sake of takling a job....and I support that. But one who takes a jhob for the sake of taking a job is mopre likely toleave that job when a "better one" comes up. But one who LEAVES a job for a job is one who is giving something up and more likely to bne there for a longer period of time. I am not saying it is right or wrong....but you can not deny it is smart business. Sux...but true.
It isn't as simple as people who comfort themselves with images of the unworthy like to think. Its good that you were homeless once upon a time (so was I), not that I wish you ill even in retrospect, but so at least you have an idea what it is like to work out of a hole. Still, I think that reality has changed so much over time that you wouldn't recognize the landscape enough to fully appreciate what it is to negotiate it.
look...being poor sux.....but being poor isnt the end of the world......and I am not only a true believer in the theory that being poor can make you rich if you learn from it...I am an actual success story.
It is why I preach as I do. I experienced it.
You are an anomaly, and likely didn't start out (from birth) poor (neither did I). It was a summer. Before that, as a kid, you likely had regular doctor and dental (teeth are also attractive to would be employers), didn't grow up snuffing exhaust fumes...
look, we probably will never agree, and I appreciate what understanding you have, but I not only studied all this, but I lived it, and I don't attribute my tenuous position on the lowest rungs of the lower middle class on my ability to cope with the ever changing bullshit that is the economy that came to be while I was in my senior year of high school; I attribute my coping skills to the childhood that includes regular doctor and dental care, decent schools in upscale neighborhoods, being white and blonde and blue eyed in a society that rewarded that quirk of fate with preferential treatment from the cops that followed me home on drunken nights out and called my father instead of arresting me to the employers who hired me instead of someone else who might have been more dedicated to whatever business in question, that my father HAD his own business to go back to when the other hired a man to an executive position after I worked three weeks straight double shifts once he fired everyone else for smoking pot in the walk in coolers, that every advantage OF growing up middle class rather than poor led me to seek college education...
the whole "there but for the grace of god,"
rather than the FUCK YOU I GOT MINE
that I see here, on the news, in op ed pieces, from the Heritage Foundation...
it is NOT so simple. It just isn't. And the era from which you pulled yourself up from bootstraps doesn't EXIST anymore.
I see that no one has given any facts disputing what I have said. Saying oh you are wrong is an opinionI have not seen you bring any info from the other side to counter other than to say it is wrong...and that is putting it kindly. By all means give some real data to refute the reality that is happening around you.
Then you haven't read my posts. Not my fault, yours.
Please tell us what policies you think do that. Macro or micro, or what combination of both.
A few examples off the top of my pointy head:
That's a start.
- Lead by example, stressing independence over dependence
- Minimize financial roadblocks to people such as income taxes, especially for the middle class.
- Maximize efficiencies in regulation by understanding that MORE regulation is not necessarily BETTER regulation; effectiveness is the key
- Minimize redundancies in regulation
- Maximize incentives for effort and risk-taking through the tax system
- Promote a culture of effort, self-discipline and responsibility at every opportunity
.
I can handle specifics. I have to sleep for work tonight, so take your time. I'll be back around midnight.
