It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

page: 27
72
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mrnotobc
 


bill gates and donald trump come to mind instantly.

I think that is an extremely fair example.




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

Thank you brother for the links.
I'd still prefer to have a choice in insurance, though.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

Thank you brother for the links.
I'd still prefer to have a choice in insurance, though.


You do!

No one is removing your freedom to go and buy insurance...?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I thought "Dear Leader" was in reference to Mao Tze Tung. "Der Fuhrer" is reference to Hitler.

My better half works for a company that has about ten people. The owner/boss doesn't rake in much more than the other employees, due to trying to keep the business open.
There is the possibility of some of the employees being cut down to 29 hours a week, so the insurance mess won't come into play, but I don't know much about Obamacare. From what I understand, all full time employees must be covered. We have good insurance from her work, but we don't know if we are allowed to keep it, or if the company pays a fine if they refuse Obamacare. If someone can enlighten me to the FACTS, not propaganda, I'd appreciate it. I'd really prefer to keep the old insurance, but don't know if I have any choice.
(Edited to add, I see Dixiebaby has provided a link.)
There are costs coming, and there has to be some decisions made. You can let go of a few employees, and keep the company open for the rest, or keep all the employees and eventually go out of business.
There is inflation coming. There is no doubt that there is a financial crisis coming. Gas prices will rise again. There very well be new, higher taxes on the horizon. It's not going to be a good habitat for small businesses.

The business of which I speak of must deal regularly with the EPA. There's some changes coming with that. Electricity will be going up due changes in the coal industry.
I'm sorry I can't change the facts for you. The economic landscape of the USA is such that layoffs are inevitable.

I myself am a self employed graphic artist. We don't know if I have to buy into Obamacare for myself, or if I can still use BH's insurance. I'm hired by contract. and am still trying to figure out the intricacies of it.
edit on 9-11-2012 by TheCounselor because: (no reason given)


No.

None of your fears are founded!

Obamacare is a system which forces you to have insurance, either through your employer, or through insurance co-ops. To keep costs down it also makes a lot of changes to how insurances do business, like forcing them to spend 80% of their income on services, and refund the rest (millions have already been refunded in CA for example).

Businesses "have" to provide insurance for their employees, or face a fine. If they already are, then they're fine, no worries.

If they aren't, then they pay a fine, per employee, to offset the cost to the system.

BUT, realistically, 90+% of employers already are.

So, this is MOSTLY about people not covered, either due to not working full time in a business that provides insurance, or not being employed, or because of a pre-existing condition.

I'll give you an example from my life.

I worked in Boston for a decade. I have a good friend with a long term health problem. He WOULD pay several grand a month for meds, without insurance. He's also a pretty successful artist and makes enough money to pay all his bills, rent, go on vacation, save, etc., except for his meds. That cost almost made him homeless ... that was about 15 years ago... anyway. To solve his problem, he until about 2-3 years ago, worked a 40hr/week job doing data entry (he has a fine arts degree) - to "pay" for his meds... as they offered insurance.

In Ireland, where I live now, he'd be a successful full-time artist. In America, he worked 40hr/weeks for insurance and then another 30-40hrs a week on art.

That's just wrong.

Obamacare LOOKS to try and address him and millions others like him; people that WOULD buy insurance, if it was affordable.

TBH, Obamacare is really a half measure; what the US needs is proper universal healthcare, like Europe, where I've lived for 10 years.. never had a bad experience really, and no one misses out on their dreams due to the cost of healthcare and hospital bills... and it costs less to the populations... and in many cases the care is better...

Better care, cheaper, full coverage... that's what we should be aiming for... but we're too obsessed with protecting the insurance companies... you know... so... every step in the right direction is worth fighting for though...

Don't let the fearmongering from the right scare you though - go read up and learn the truth!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   


To keep costs down it also makes a lot of changes to how insurances do business, like forcing them to spend 80% of their income on services, and refund the rest (millions have already been refunded in CA for example).
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Well, first of all, the percentage is 85%, not 80%.
However, what obviously you and many people do not know, is that if your employer takes your premiums out of your paycheck or, if you are retired, your retirement check, the refund goes to the EMPLOYER, not the employee. The employer is under no obligation to refund the money to the EMPLOYER. Read the fine print.
Now, if you think this is just a hypothetical, let me tell you, that as a retired person, that I paid 95% of my premiums for my wife and I of over $1,500 per month last year, through deductions from my retirement check, I found out the hard way, the truth of what I just laid out. I even called my congressman, who confirmed that the company has no obligation to return the money to me. In fact, if I changed health insurance this year, as I did because my wife went on Medicare, they CANNOT refund the money to me. So the COMPANY gets to keep the money.
Obamacare is loaded with all sorts of "gotchas" in it. Remember that it was the insurance lobbyist group that actually wrote the law, not the ignorant House members, who didn't have to worry about the details, because they have a great policy.
This is just another example of how the government works with corporations, to the benefit of themselves and the detriment of the average citizen.
Those that think that there is ANY difference between Dems and Reps don't have a clue. They are both crooked, and could care less about you, as a citizen.
edit on 9-11-2012 by ProfEmeritus because: typo



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
If this wasn't so dire, I would almost laugh...you folks that are talking about how bad these businesses are for taking necessary steps to stay afloat...you have no concept the cost of running a business...yes, taxes, Obamacare, regulations all hit hard...I work with various small business owners every single day as part of my job...they ALL say this, they cannot afford to hire, or keep large staffs...and just because a business is doing say...10 million dollars, dont forget all the costs involved...payroll is a small part, even if its at 2 million, there are dozens of other costs that come out of 10 Million gorss...trust me, that is about what my average customer does...these are not business owners making millions per year...just wow.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by romney

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.



Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...
edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?



What a load of hogwash

Do you really think there is any motive for corporations to reduce cost and therefore profit?

There is no real competition in that market, period, it is a farce that you have bought into.



Again, you ignore the facts that I put up and demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic economics. If you drive the price of a commodity up too high, profits fall with demand.

Also, you complain that there is no competition in oil (outside OPEC you would be wrong) then who is to blame? Back again to government where regulations prevent startup oil companies by making the start of one too onerous and expensive to do.

Big government is the problem, not the solution. Always was and always will.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by TheCounselor
reply to post by longlostbrother
 

Thank you brother for the links.
I'd still prefer to have a choice in insurance, though.


You do!

No one is removing your freedom to go and buy insurance...?


Not for long. When the full taxation, mandates, and regulations of hte monster 2,700 page Obamacare bill hit, private insurnace will become more and more untenable and companies will fold and everybody will be screaming for government healthcare and we will go to a single system. This was the intent. See Cloward-Piven.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
I work for a company that has been on a hiring spree all year, adding 50+ jobs this year alone. Today, I got the call that my staff is being cut by over 75%. I have no idea how we'll be able to deliver our work next year, it just seems impossible.

I've heard some other anecdotal evidence that people are losing their jobs all across the company as businesses allocate what used to be salary to future taxes.



Geezus man why do people makes such ridiculous claims like this???

Company does not just hire or fire people because their preferred candidate didn't get elected!
Come on be realistic! Obama hasn't even announced what the tax code will be or how it will change.

I'm not saying you're an outright liar but this sounds like melarky!!!

And this notion that giving millionaires and billionaires more tax break will create more jobs is just absurd!!!!
Maybe this is an idea that rich people can feed the poor people in order to persuade the have-nots to vote in the candidate that will add more millions and billions to their bottom lines!!!

Anybody with a half functional brain common sense and basic understanding of business 101 knows for a fact this is a blatant fear lingering tactic and LIE!!!!
A company will and ONLY will hire or create jobs when the business requires it due to increased business or to fill a void or when new projects are created or when demand for said products or services outgrow current personnel capabilities!!!!!!

Companies DO NOT HAVE NEVER AND MEVER WILL SAY TO THEMSELVES:

"Hey those tax breaks added 20 million dollars to our bottom line, so ok let's to ahead and create a few new jobs and or hire more people for the hell of it!!!"

HELL NO AND DOUBLE AND TRIPS HELL NOOOO!!!!!!

That is not how business works/operates!!!!

Seriously man get real!!!!!!
Stop this crazy people talk!!!



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by DixieBaby
 


How about this:



ObamaCare Employer / Employee Taxes

Unless you own a company that makes over $250k in taxable profit or has over 50 employees you do not have to insure your employees. If you exceed these amounts you have to either insure your employees or pay a tax. Employers who do not meet these guidelines (97% of small businesses) will receive tax credits for insuring their employees.

In other words the ObamaCare taxes help small business employees and employers by offering them better health insurance and bigger tax breaks.


That's from your link.

And this from uber-liberal Forbes:


Businesses with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance or pay a penalty. If the business fails to comply, the penalty is $2,000 for each full-time employee (with a 30-employee deduction.) Additionally, if the coverage offered is too expensive (defined as costing more than 9.5 percent of the employee’s household income), the penalty is $3,000 per employee who must buy insurance with a government subsidy. However, only 200,000 small businesses will be affected by these changes because over 96 percent of small businesses fall below the 50-employee threshold.

Overall, the ACA brings a mixture of rules and benefits, but there is nothing to suggest that the healthcare shake up will hinder job creation and economic growth. In fact, it could inject order into the unruly medical marketplace if the administration explains benefits and requirements simply and clearly.


www.forbes.com...

Also from Forbes:


Employers are not up in arms over universal, affordable healthcare coverage either, says Widmer. A two year old study from Urban Institute revealed that concerns over employers dropping coverage or scaling back benefits because of health reform have not been realized. That’s a claim many Washington Republicans have made about ObamCare, saying it would cause U.S. small businesses to hold back on hiring because of mandated insurance laws. In Massachusetts, companies were never mandated to provide health insurance.


www.forbes.com...

So basically, it affects less than 5% of business, but provides healthcare to millions of people. Even the business it DOES affect, it barely affects.

More fearmongering from the right.


So, according to your article above, if the business makes over 250k in taxable profit, regardles of how many employees the have, the will have to provide insurance?

If I am reading this right, it means that if they have, say 45 employees, they will now have to provide insurance for all 45 employees. Will the tax breaks from the government cover all of their new employer expenses for health care? Let's just say that the employers end up having to pay $20,000 due to the healthcare expenses for the employees, which is around $500 per employee per year, seems like a pretty conservative number, right? but now, he won't hire that extra employee he wanted to, because of the extra 20k. And before you say that is greedy, you have no idea what his five year plan is for his business. Maybe this business owner is using all of the profit to pay down a note so he can open a new location next year, and is now 20k short and won't do so. There goes new hiring. Obamacare will and does effect small business owners in a meaningful financial way, can you not see it?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Yup, where I work we share the building with a recently bought out cable-phone-internet company. Over the past six months they had already forced some retirements, and otherwise cut staff. Things had stabilized and they were planning on staying in the building till at least Spring. On Wednesday, a couple of more people got cut and seems like they are going to be vacating their current space at the first of the year. Also at my own work I was doing a couple of follow ups with business people who'd told me to get back with them after the election about various wireless services-- I did and they told me they no longer have a need for additional lines of service or other products we'd talked about and were probably going to be cutting employees and maybe dropping existing lines.

Also, I'm finding that Obamacare is a gift that keeps on giving. The rules are anyone who works 30 hrs is considered full time, and the employer must provide healthcare. I'm already hearing about restaurants and retail cutting all shifts to around 25 hrs. That particular rule doesn't seem to hit until 2014, but I'm sure the legal departments are telling decision makers that they just can't all of the sudden drop everyone to



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a local business who has seen it's share of hard times in my area . who's been known in the past with great employment and sales .. Are laying off 30 people . 120 . people work there . A good friend of mine who's been there for 10 years is one of them ... He's lost now ... He had a feeling he would stay .. But since Obummer was elected again . I guess the owner doesn't want to take a chance .



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by romney

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NavyDoc

LOL. Your charts did not mention any sepcifics.



Wow...didn't look at the link did you? Can't figure out if you are ignorant in this claim or dishonest? Actually stopped caring either way...
edit on 8-11-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


They really just divide up the cost of a gallon by percentages, it does not address the cost of the percentages nor the underlying costs that make those portions. Regulations of fuel delivery trucks and taxes upon them incerase the transportation costs for example--something that you ignore entirely. Of course you conveniently blew off all of my links. Intellectually dishonest?



What a load of hogwash

Do you really think there is any motive for corporations to reduce cost and therefore profit?

There is no real competition in that market, period, it is a farce that you have bought into.



Again, you ignore the facts that I put up and demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic economics. If you drive the price of a commodity up too high, profits fall with demand.

Also, you complain that there is no competition in oil (outside OPEC you would be wrong) then who is to blame? Back again to government where regulations prevent startup oil companies by making the start of one too onerous and expensive to do.

Big government is the problem, not the solution. Always was and always will.


the U.S. has become a NET EXPORTER of oil, (more leaving than staying here) the first time in 63 years.....the problem isn't oil production, it's refinery production into diesel, aviation fuel, oils and lubricants, and most of all gasoline...i propose that the US nationalize refinerys...therefore, the US can buy oil from the lowest bidder, take out the profit, and provide the needed energy to lower business and personal energy use costs across the nation. the nations financial security should NOT be left to private monopolies, who control the vital and necessary energy of both civilian and military needs.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Aren't refineries a huge pollution risk? I *think* that is why no one ever bothered trying to put any in the US. Too many EPA holes to jump through, not that I think that's a bad thing. It's not a smart idea to keep on polluting and hoping the next generation comes up with a better solution. Always putting everything off, let the next generations deal with it. Bad bad mentality.
edit on Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:53:24 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
And now the larger companies are stating to perform their layoffs.
www.theblaze.com...
Way to go America. We are getting the Govt that we deserve.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

the U.S. has become a NET EXPORTER of oil, (more leaving than staying here) the first time in 63 years.....the problem isn't oil production, it's refinery production into diesel, aviation fuel, oils and lubricants, and most of all gasoline...i propose that the US nationalize refinerys...therefore, the US can buy oil from the lowest bidder, take out the profit, and provide the needed energy to lower business and personal energy use costs across the nation. the nations financial security should NOT be left to private monopolies, who control the vital and necessary energy of both civilian and military needs.


Per the EIA:

US oil production: 6 million barrels / day
US oil consumption: 18.83 million barrels / day.

The rest in creative accounting with crude supplied by others and refined inside the US. The US is very, very far from 'energy independence'.
edit on 9-11-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shoenice
a local business who has seen it's share of hard times in my area . who's been known in the past with great employment and sales .. Are laying off 30 people . 120 . people work there . A good friend of mine who's been there for 10 years is one of them ... He's lost now ... He had a feeling he would stay .. But since Obummer was elected again . I guess the owner doesn't want to take a chance .


in detail, what would romney have done to keep those people in that particular business employed? what was that businesses competition?...what was the product made? attaching Obamas name and the blame directly to this particular businesses loss of jobs, is neither logical or productive, therefore, it does not make sense.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jimmyx

the U.S. has become a NET EXPORTER of oil, (more leaving than staying here) the first time in 63 years.....the problem isn't oil production, it's refinery production into diesel, aviation fuel, oils and lubricants, and most of all gasoline...i propose that the US nationalize refinerys...therefore, the US can buy oil from the lowest bidder, take out the profit, and provide the needed energy to lower business and personal energy use costs across the nation. the nations financial security should NOT be left to private monopolies, who control the vital and necessary energy of both civilian and military needs.


Per the EIA:

US oil production: 6 million barrels / day
US oil consumption: 18.83 million barrels / day.

The rest in creative accounting with crude supplied by others and refined inside the US. The US is very, very far from 'energy independence'.
edit on 9-11-2012 by peck420 because: (no reason given)


ok, i thought this was a given...but, i'll say it...from middle eastern (OPEC) sources.
online.wsj.com...
edit on 9-11-2012 by jimmyx because: addition



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


His Pro Business policies, like lower Taxes and 0bamacare repeal would have created better economic conditions for businesses.

This is not new, and to ask this question over and over again just shows ignorance.

When the Govt has an anti business stance, business will retract.
Not rocket science.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
all of us should quit our day jobs.
stop the extortion tax - they/them that call themselves federal gubbers have never and will never do a thing for you and me.







 
72
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join