Obama Wins - Layoffs Starting

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by macman

 

So -- the coalition representing 2/3 of the money just voted to pay itself with "free stuff" it has to pay for through its own economic activity? That seems logical to you?

edit on 9-11-2012 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)

Your thoughts lay in the frame that nothing from the Govt is free, as it has to first take money from someone to give/provide for another.

The truth is that the masses believe that the Govt provides them "stuff" and will continue to do so, without any thought as to where or who the money was taken from first.

Reply to post by macman

First of all, people do not vote Dem because they'll receive free stuff.

That is what the right is telling themselves because that is easier to swallow than the fact that their ideas are outdated and only support fundamentalist Xtians and the super wealthy.

The fact is that the 'free stuff' people collecting is SS which they pay into. It's their money.

Secondly, if you're referring to welfare, Republicans pay that out too. Actually, red states receive the most government assistance.

Your thinking is all straw man and it's going to prevent you from coming up with actual solutions. You're stuck on the Santa Claus propaganda.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by jimmyx


I hope you're right, because they're just as bad as the democrats.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
My daughter works for a major hotel chain and up to now was working five 8 hour days a week. They hired more workers and just this week changed to working them three 8 hour days a week instead. Is this a ploy to get out of offering health insurance?

Yep... they are now not full time, so her company is not required to offer them anything....no benfits at all...

Other companies will find that paying the fines and dumping their workers on Obamacare will be cheaper in the long run for them too. We still have about 2000 pages of it still to read to find out what else does it do.

I'm going to add to Xtrozero's quote and say that, now your daughter will be earning less money but will be required to pay for her own medical insurance (through the roof premiums) on her now 'less than before' income or face being fined if she doesn't comply. If her income is at or below the current level of indigent, she may get free or subsidized medical insurance. Now consider that an employer who once provided health benefits, decides not to in light of Obamacare, the employee must now provide it.....with less income to do so. If they can't, the middle class will be forced to pay even more to support those who can't. It's a vicious circle with the middle to upper class being the backbone of support.

Obamacare is a no win situation for everyone. The people who were indigent before will remain on free medical. The people who on paper might be able to afford it but STILL can't, will face even more financial stress. The people who can afford it period, will do so. Employers on the cusp of making it or breaking it will do what they need to in order to stay in business.

I worked for a struggling company for many years. Many business owners feel they owe it to their employees to provide work, especially in a struggling economy. The company I worked for did the best it could to stay afloat amidst the taxes, insurance - business and workers comp, and others, and less income. It's unbelievable how much money is expended in a company for these things. The costs to run a business don't go down in price because the economy is bad. The owner tried even in the tough times to provide work but after not breaking even for a long period, had to close his doors. He too was broke, his employees lost their jobs. Yes, that's life. But because of Obamacare, we are going to see a lot more 'life'!

Lets face the facts people. Both party's got us to where we are now. One is not better than the other. Neither is going to fix this mess.

Originally posted by spinalremain
Reply to post by macman

 

First of all, people do not vote Dem because they'll receive free stuff.

That is what the right is telling themselves because that is easier to swallow than the fact that their ideas are outdated and only support fundamentalist Xtians and the super wealthy.

The fact is that the 'free stuff' people collecting is SS which they pay into. It's their money.

Secondly, if you're referring to welfare, Republicans pay that out too. Actually, red states receive the most government assistance.

Your thinking is all straw man and it's going to prevent you from coming up with actual solutions. You're stuck on the Santa Claus propaganda.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Oh, I never said it was "just" for free stuff. Dems love the backing of Unions, which from all my experience breeds nothing more than laziness, this idea that everyone is special and there are no losers in life, that the Govt should control more of everyone's life and what happens especially because we can't have someone fail, Govt should provide Health Care and so on, that we need different laws for micro groups of special people and of course that the Evil Rich people are after you.


So, not just free stuff. It is a whole host of BS and crap that Dems back.

Oh, and SS really isn't "their" money as WE are all forced to put into a program that is the basic definition of a Ponzi scheme. The individual pays into it with a return based on more people paying into it.
Which I may add is set to be out of money in what, 10 years or so.

Yeah, really great.

reply to post by macman


Right. "Laziness."

And -- the concept of a weekend (5 day work week), income equality and fair wages for workers who were paid by the company store, and had all of their wages + 15% "taken back" each week, for their necessities. And -- widespread employer based health coverage. And -- the family medical leave act, which guarantees that you won't lose your job if your 10 year old gets cancer.

Frankly -- the only laziness I see here is in the hard right's stubborn resistance to big pictures, facts, and math.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s

Right. "Laziness."

Yes, laziness.
I have found more Unions people, Qwest workers sleeping while on the clock, fishing and doing all sorts of other things. The great people are not rewarded, as those that have more time get the rewards.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
And -- the concept of a weekend (5 day work week), income equality and fair wages for workers who were paid by the company store, and had all of their wages + 15% "taken back" each week, for their necessities. And -- widespread employer based health coverage. And -- the family medical leave act, which guarantees that you won't lose your job if your 10 year old gets cancer.

Ah, the 50's and 60's Unions compared to the Unions of today are a far far cry from what you strut around.
Family leave act was from Clinton, not Unions.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
Frankly -- the only laziness I see here is in the hard right's stubborn resistance to big pictures, facts, and math.

Yeah, ah ha. Sure sure.

So, as the economy continues to spiral over the next couple of years, I wonder. Who will you and 0bama blame?
Bush? AS goes that seems to be the easiest knee jerk response or maybe First Term 0bama.

And since when is stubbornness akin to laziness.
Maybe go back and rethink that, as they are at different sides of the spectrum.

You're right. "What I see today," on the news, right now, are union firefighters on the east coast helping flood victims, and union electricians and plumbers fixing the damage and restoring basic services. You'll have a hard time selling your narrative to the states who voted blue on the 6th, because they are overwhelmingly union, and they overwhelmingly earn and generate 2/3 the nations GDP.

Union busting is a doomed political strategy, demographically and socially.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


You're looking at the good things, but ignoring the bad. I used to be a Teamster, working for a major airline. I wouldn't say we were lazy, because we worked pretty hard, but we were as crooked as it gets. The airline eventually went bankrupt partly because we didn't give a damn about anything except doing all in our power to force the company to pay us more. I was young then, and it seemed like a good thing to do.

I'm pretty sure if you owned a business, and I was your employee, and I did the things to you, that we did to that airline you'd want to fire me as fast as you could, but guess what? You can't because I have a union contract that says you can't.

reply to post by Xtrozero


THe one where there were no riots. Still quiteon the streets.

reply to post by mrnotobc


And you are looking at more bad than good?

Look -- there are always problems inherent in any system; that's what regulation, over-site, debate and legislation is designed to address.

One of the reasons the GOP lost the white house (again) is that their rhetoric isn't about regulating the bad, while promoting the good. It's chiefly about busting unions.

I'm just saying that it's going to be hard to sell that in the places that voted blue, and that the argument can be made that they probably know better.

If our nation is a business, who do you listen to as the CEO? The least profitable sector at 1/3 your revenue, or the most profitable -- at 2/3's?

And for the record, my union experiences at AT&T from 96-2003 were pretty AWFUL as well, but that doesn't change the simple fact that you can't win a national election trash-talking the concept of unions.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
You're right. "What I see today," on the news, right now, are union firefighters on the east coast helping flood victims, and union electricians and plumbers fixing the damage and restoring basic services. You'll have a hard time selling your narrative to the states who voted blue on the 6th, because they are overwhelmingly union, and they overwhelmingly earn and generate 2/3 the nations GDP.

Union busting is a doomed political strategy, demographically and socially.

Oh yeah, that is nice and all. But, as the story unfolded, Non Union based shows were turned away. While that happened in one instance, I have seen where many of Non-union people were treated Oh So well by Union workers.
Isn't there a HUGE investigation into those Union Based Electrical Shows for not restoring power in a timely manner?
Nah, can't be, because they all walk on water.

Oh, and how is the power restoration going in those areas?

Plus, lets not forget all the stories posted here on ATS over the last 2 years that depicted Union workers stealing Romney Signs, sleeping on the job, teachers caught abusing kids only to be placed on Admin leave with pay for years on end and so on.

Yeah, Unions are great. Just look at what they have done to the Telecom industry.

reply to post by macman


And you still can't win a national election trash talking unions. You get that right?

reply to post by longlostbrother

Thank you for the link. Its the first I have seen that showed any amount for a fine. I never said if there was less than 50 employees they would have to buy insurance. Just said they offer a tax credit but no way to see what the requirements are for the tax breaks or the amount.

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.

Here is a minimum of a $60,000 - $90,000 fine. Not easily absorbed by a business already struggling to survive in this economy. The alternative, paying for 50% of insurance for 60 people. So yeah I think I would still have to say I would cut my 60 employee force to stay under the threshold.

I tried to do some quoting and links to page but went over the 5000 word count. So I will say what I need to say and just add the links and you can read the page yourself.
fact check.org
Obamacare will effect small businesses also. Not directly with the insurance requirements but indirectly through lost revenue from people. If your family makes more than $19,000 taxable income and you don't work for a big company, you are responsible for purchasing your own insurance. So I have the option of paying anywhere from $9,000 to $12,000 a year for insurance. Or pay a tax of $2000+ a year for someone else to have insurance and me to be left uninsured. I don't mind being uninsured, but I do mind being forced to pay for someone else to be insured. That extra tax comes out of my spending money. I can't afford to pay $9,000 for insurance. Currently I shop local, paying an extra $.25 to $1.00 on each item I buy at a local store over walmart. With a buggy full of groceries that adds up. So I will be forced to stop buying local and start shopping walmart, helping the big corporation get bigger and the mom and pop store go out of business. I am sure big cities will be fine as most employers there are larger. In the average towns all across America you can bet there will be many layoffs and many businesses closing! It wont all be seen right away, but will trickle in a little at a time.

For those who already have insurance, they can expect premiums to go up from 19% - 30%.

And then there’s Obamacare’s tax increases Finally, it’s worth touching on Obamacare’s tax increases. From 2013-2022, Obamacare increases taxes by $1.2 trillion, which amounts to $15,796 for the average family of four.

www.forbes.com...
This is not fear mongering from the right. Perhaps you think only businesses with more than 50 employees will be effected. Thats just not true. For a lot of businesses profits have been down for a few years. I am not blaming that on Obama, just saying there are companies who are doing their best to keep their employees working. And adding this on will not help. Inflation is up, gas prices are high, groceries have went up, my utilities are even higher. So any family living paycheck to paycheck will have to cut spending, which in turn means less money for local small businesses.

By the way, we are rich by no means. One income family, 40 hour work week. Sad thing is with all the programs out there we would be better off working just part time or not at all, and just living off the government programs. So would a lot of other people. Might explain why unemployment is so high, wonder how high it will go when obamacare really kicks in and people realize they are better off not working.

You seem to be focusing on tiny potatos. Who cares what republicans think about unions? Our country is about to go under because of government spending, and both partys are responsible. How can you support either one of them?

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by macman

 

And you still can't win a national election trash talking unions. You get that right?

I am not the spokesperson for the Rep Party.
I am not even a Rep.

I bet you cried foul about Corporations being able to contribute money to politics but have no problem with Unions doing so.


But, back on topic.
The man child leader 0bama won.
Now here come the layoffs.
That is a reality.
The next couple of years sure will be great. High unemployment, High Debt, More people on Welfare and Increased Govt control of the individual.

reply to post by macman


Where does that line start again. You know the one where I get everything? I want to get on it.

reply to post by mrnotobc


Because I grew out of my libertarian / Ayn Rand, every-man-for-himself phase, back in 1987, when I was 19 years old?

Again -- we have systemic problems. They will never be addressed piece-meal, to anyone's satisfaction. I am simply pointing out that -- as much as my own personal experience with unions was bad -- waging a campaign to bust them up is a losing strategy for ANY party.