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

[MeBelle]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.

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

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

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

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

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

Who gets credit in their budget for this reimbursement?




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

 

[Bfgrn]

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

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

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

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



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

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.

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

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

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

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

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

Who gets credit in their budget for this reimbursement?




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

The BIG LIE...

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MeBelle]

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

Sweet pea, try again?

 

[BobPlumb]

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

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

 

[oreo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.

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

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

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

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

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

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

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

of course not

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

why not ban free speech of the owner of business

welcome aboard comrade

to the fundamental changes the prezbo promised

 

[dellt]

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

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

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

 

[oreo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JQPublic1]

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

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

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

Technically, BOTH PARTIES OWN THE FY 2009 budget.

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

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

 

[Bfgrn]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

Where did you get those facts, MTV?

 

[Stephanie]

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

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

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

well for sure there were NO Democrats During the Bush administration

they just came on with Obama's election

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

 

[JQPublic1]

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

Where did you get those facts, MTV?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Where do you guys get this shit?


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

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

 

[JQPublic1]

Budget Process and Presidential Terms

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

Bush?s Huge Budget Numbers Blamed on Obama

 

[B. Kidd]

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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

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

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

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

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

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