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

[emilynghiem]

Dear Mojo: Even where people have been horrified from the get go with this individual mandate, they have felt powerless to do anything -- if the only vocal objections are either rightwing extreme or Tea Party shutdowns.

I have friends who are liberal who have nowhere to turn because the party is sold out to tow the line against the GOP as "not a choice to align with but as the opposition to any reform at all."

One friend who reported that the SinglePayer advocacy groups are against ACA
can't align with him on using prison reforms to offer a better way to revamp
the state budgets to pay for health care. So the left is divided between the
Greens and real left who want sustainable care and insurance companies OUT
and the politicians entrenched in keeping politics as usual (same problem with GOP).

So both sides are stuck waiting for the ax to fall before anyone takes action.

I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.

People do care but things seem politically deadlocked. I had one friend who offered an alternative on the GOP side but people are too consumed with elections to beat this thing that way, they don't even have room to look at corrective alternatives, only fighting by party. A lot of people are sidelined with no direction; one friend cannot get any health care help and is depressed. his health is in such a terrible state, he can't speak out and fight.

And if he did, he doesn't want his objection abused for the GOP to win political points.
so again he cannot align with them he still sees as the enemy. though he agrees
the ACA mandates should have been delayed, and the tax removed off medical devices.

there was agreement on that across parties, but it was stopped by Obama's politics.

Holy fuck.

Exactly!

That was my reaction when i first heard of this a couple of days ago.

And my impression since then, when considering the tepid and 'ho-hum' response by the American public has been that this event is kind of a gauge of our Sheepleness.

We are mindless and are able to be herded like sheep and all we care about is making sure that we are not violating Political Correctness and that we are comfortable and comfortably impaired by drugs, smoke, drink or the entertainment media.

THIS is exactly how the frog gets boiled.

Whether you readers know it or not, this shit is serious.

Get up off your ass and do something, serious.

Or at least register your outrage by flaming Obama on these pages. That's the level of seriousness this stuff warrants!

Instead, many people are just continuing to post as if nothing much is going on. They are focusing on the 'merits' of this bill or law.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!

It is as clear and unmistakable an indication that a hostile government coup d'etat has taken place and the President is now lawless and is trying to grab OUR power.

And he has played his hand almost perfectly.

You all are still non-plussed by this act of tyranny.

You didn't recognize it when you found out about it.

You didn't become alarmed about it.

You still may not care about what Obama has done.

You don't seem interested in hearing anything about it or talking about it.

No wonder he has taken it upon himself to act like a Dictator.

We have let our knowledge of government become flaccid. Our defense from a usurping con man is as failed as the Trojans were negligent in protecting themselves from the Greeks of the Trojan Horse event.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RYGQQ_qybY]The Trojan Horse - YouTube[/ame]

He is inside our walls and we are being robbed of our freedoms.

Those of you who don't react to the alarm bells going off now don't deserve freedom.

What will you tell your grandkids as to why you let this happen without a fight???

And it's NOT just the Conservatives who should be up in arms and moved by a sense of urgency at this assault on our system of government.

EVERY American who loves this country, our Constitution and our way of life should be going crazy at this.

also the people who were prochoice until ACA was pushed to legislate health care choices.
trying to figure out how this bill is in any way "prochoice" has sent me into depression, worrying if I was insane for thinking this was self-contradictory AGAINST prochoice.
nobody else has been able to explain it to me how is this prochoice. just crazymaking!

My friend Ray Hill who is a liberal's liberal is the one who assured me that he and all the Singlepayer advocates he knows including the largest lobby group in Texas are all
against ACA. but because the opposition is for different reasons than the GOP and Tea Party opposition, they are not aligning or working together to stop the ACA mandates.

if sides don't agree what to replace it with, so we are stuck with ACA while they conflict.

this is why I advocate separating policy by party so everyone can fund their own programs.

 

[Iceweasel]

I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.

The Republicans can't do a damn thing about it. Period. They tried to pass the budget with everything funded but ObamaCare and the Senate said NO. All or nothing. So they were going to get blamed yet again for a government shutdown. The people voted stupidly so quit blaming the GOP!

 

[william the wie]

I talked with GOP opposition whose strategy is to wait for obamacare to blow up on the Democrats; if they step in early with reforms, they'll get the blame either way for anything that continues to go wrong or isn't fully fixed. they'll get blamed for what they change.

The Republicans can't do a damn thing about it. Period. They tried to pass the budget with everything funded but ObamaCare and the Senate said NO. All or nothing. So they were going to get blamed yet again for a government shutdown. The people voted stupidly so quit blaming the GOP!

Yeah, it was insane to reelect Obama in 2012 but the establishment GOP handed that election to him with the D-lite Romney.

 

[PredFan]

If an employer cannot be profitable complying with ACA unless they reduce their work force, the company will just close up. This is part of the democrat war on work.

No, that's incorrect. If they can show lack of profit, they would be exempt from paying they fine or having to provide coverage.

What you don't get is that the government has no right to do that. A private company could fire the four and shouldn't have to justify it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yeah, it was insane to reelect Obama in 2012 but the establishment GOP handed that election to him with the D-lite Romney.

Romney won the nomination by state elections. The establishment GOP rigged them? I agree he wasn't conservative enough but it's the party's preference to be Democrat lite that's the cause. They also have a hostile media to deal with but I think the right guy could bust through, like Reagan.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
Most of the USMB veterans here know about the unfunded wars and how Bush used emergency funds to circumvent normal channels of appropriation. Medicare Part D was also unfunded and implemented by the Bush administration. Where did that unfunded war money come from? It was borrowed from the general fund which, by law, holds surplus monies from federal agencies like the Social Security Trust funds. An IOU was generated to keep track of the debt owed by those transactions. So, since the wars were not budgeted, they were unfunded.

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

It’s time for you to answer a question. What did Obama spend that even came close tot Bush’s wars and Medicare part D

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.

See above and also use your goggle search engine. Congress may pass a law or budgetary concern but the president’s signature is what makes it law.

Please read this link. It will save me from having to respond to a lot of dumb questions.

Study Criticizes Bush Approach to War Funding, Calls for Changes

 

[Iceweasel]

That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
Most of the USMB veterans here know about the unfunded wars and how Bush used emergency funds to circumvent normal channels of appropriation.

I'm new here but not new to talking to smug superior liberals. You just contradicted yourself, if emergency funds were used then how is that mean it's unfunded? And like I said earlier, Congress passes the budgets. It wasn't included in normal defense spending but they did indeed fund the wars with suplimental bills. Not does not translate into "unfunded".

Medicare Part D was also unfunded and implemented by the Bush administration. Where did that unfunded war money come from? It was borrowed from the general fund which, by law, holds surplus monies from federal agencies like the Social Security Trust funds. An IOU was generated to keep track of the debt owed by those transactions. So, since the wars were not budgeted, they were unfunded.

The military operations couldn't come from the typical funding since we weren't previously at war. Duh.

It’s time for you to answer a question. What did Obama spend that even came close tot Bush’s wars and Medicare part D

Start with the "stimulus" spending. 800 billion in one shot. With nothing to show for it.

See above and also use your goggle search engine. Congress may pass a law or budgetary concern but the president’s signature is what makes it law.

We are discussing your charge that the wars were unfunded but congress voted on the actions, now you claim they didn't know we would have to pay for it and it's Bush's fault. Grow up.

 

[Bfgrn]

That is why I hate to debate newbies, they think they know everything but in reality are short on info.
Most of the USMB veterans here know about the unfunded wars and how Bush used emergency funds to circumvent normal channels of appropriation.

I'm new here but not new to talking to smug superior liberals. You just contradicted yourself, if emergency funds were used then how is that mean it's unfunded? And like I said earlier, Congress passes the budgets. It wasn't included in normal defense spending but they did indeed fund the wars with suplimental bills. Not does not translate into "unfunded".

Medicare Part D was also unfunded and implemented by the Bush administration. Where did that unfunded war money come from? It was borrowed from the general fund which, by law, holds surplus monies from federal agencies like the Social Security Trust funds. An IOU was generated to keep track of the debt owed by those transactions. So, since the wars were not budgeted, they were unfunded.

The military operations couldn't come from the typical funding since we weren't previously at war. Duh.

It’s time for you to answer a question. What did Obama spend that even came close tot Bush’s wars and Medicare part D

Start with the "stimulus" spending. 800 billion in one shot. With nothing to show for it.

See above and also use your goggle search engine. Congress may pass a law or budgetary concern but the president’s signature is what makes it law.

We are discussing your charge that the wars were unfunded but congress voted on the actions, now you claim they didn't know we would have to pay for it and it's Bush's fault. Grow up.

REALLY? Only on Faux news that parrots like you mimic...grow an adult brain...


The stimulus act was a success — and we need another

Republican animus toward the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, popularly known as the stimulus, hasn’t decreased over time. Today marks five years since President Obama signed the legislation into law, and Republicans from Marco Rubio to John Cornyn are using the anniversary to bash not only the bill but also the very idea of government spending.

It’s important to knock down these conservative claims about the stimulus, which haven’t gotten any more factually accurate over time. And it’s not just a matter of correcting the historical record — people shouldn’t be made to be afraid of proactive government intervention, which the economy undoubtedly needs more of.

Many of the things Republicans are saying today about the stimulus bill are predicated on a similar and presumably deliberate misunderstanding: that the legislation was meant to permanently fix the economy.

“Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isn’t growing fast enough — proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems,” said Rubio.

But the stimulus bill was meant to provide a temporary bump to the economy — and it did just that. Here are the facts:

Gross domestic product and total payroll employment were at historic lows when the stimulus passed, and private-sector layoffs were peaking. All three of these very important indicators began to turn around almost exactly the moment the stimulus passed. (The Center for American Progress has some great charts here.)

• The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 was as much as 3.8 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

• At the end of 2010, there were approximately 2.5 million more jobs in the country that wouldn’t have existed without the stimulus, according to Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com.

• The bill kept nearly 6 million people out of poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Most of the spending measures in the stimulus bill have expired, but the point is that it did what it was supposed to do. For Republicans to simply say “the economy is still bad, so the stimulus was a failure” is a cheap misdirection.

The other main argument against the bill has been that it puts the country too deeply in debt. But critics are wrong again. The stimulus act only exacerbated the long-term budget problem to a very small degree — it added just 3 percent to the budget shortfall through 2050, according to CBPP.



CBO reports stimulus package was a major economic success

7:58 am November 23, 2011

The Congressional Budget Office has released its latest assessment of the 2009 stimulus package and the economic impact of its various components.

According to the CBO analysis of stimulus provisions:

– They raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 0.3 percent and 1.9 percent (see Table 1),
– They lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.2 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
– They increased the number of people employed by between 0.4 million and 2.4 million, and
– They increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 0.5 million to 3.3 million. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

 

[Iceweasel]

REALLY? Only on Faux news that parrots like you mimic...grow an adult brain...

You say Faux news then tell me I'm a parrot and grow a brain? Are you trolling for an opposite view retard to argue with?

Many of the things Republicans are saying today about the stimulus bill are predicated on a similar and presumably deliberate misunderstanding: that the legislation was meant to permanently fix the economy.

That's a lie. The propagandist immediately shifted into a strwman after making a series of rhetorical insults against his political enemies. And that's good enough for you?

“Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isn’t growing fast enough — proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems,” said Rubio.

And he's right. And unemployment is actually worse than it looks if you consider all those who dropped out of the work force with the diminished opportunity and all those underemployed since part time work is all they can find.

But the stimulus bill was meant to provide a temporary bump to the economy — and it did just that. Here are the facts:

And a lot of that money went to bs projects, predictably into the hands of those who helped the election turn out right.

Gross domestic product and total payroll employment were at historic lows when the stimulus passed, and private-sector layoffs were peaking. All three of these very important indicators began to turn around almost exactly the moment the stimulus passed. (The Center for American Progress has some great charts here.)

That's assuming a lot. They need evidence not charts that may or may not have anything to do with who's pockets the 800 billion went into.

[*]The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 was as much as 3.8 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus.

LOL. And they arrived at that...how?

[*]At the end of 2010, there were approximately 2.5 million more jobs in the country that wouldn’t have existed without the stimulus, according to Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com.

And he knows that ...how?

[*]The bill kept nearly 6 million people out of poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

And they know that ...how?

Most of the spending measures in the stimulus bill have expired, but the point is that it did what it was supposed to do. For Republicans to simply say “the economy is still bad, so the stimulus was a failure” is a cheap misdirection.

That's a cheap misdirection. Nobody exercises the tactic more than the left. It's what they do. The economy is still bad and spending 800 billion dollars on kickbacks, pet projects and bailing out unions and government workers is not a recipe for lasting effects. Someone running a hot dog stand could have told you that.

But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?

 

[JQPublic1]

We are discussing your charge that the wars were unfunded but congress voted on the actions, now you claim they didn't know we would have to pay for it and it's Bush's fault. Grow up.

You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what unfunded means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.

Here is a graph based on CBO info to help you along the long route to better understanding.

 

[Politico]

Jesus where do you people get this crap.

 

[Bfgrn]

But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?

No WE weren't. You don't even know who you are talking to. Maybe it's all the chopping up of posts that causes your confusion. The right wing compartmental mind... and it is very hard to compartmentalize a PEA.

 

[Iceweasel]

You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what unfunded means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.

You spouted off that the wars were unfunded. Which you can't support. So maybe you should think first, then type.

 

[Iceweasel]

But we were discussing your assertion that the BushCo war machine was unfunded, remember?

No WE weren't. You don't even know who you are talking to. Maybe it's all the chopping up of posts that causes your confusion. The right wing compartmental mind... and it is very hard to compartmentalize a PEA.

Sorry, it's hard to tell you two apart. But feel free to answer the rest of my response to your partisan assertions.

 

[JQPublic1]

You are clueless! Apparently you have NO idea how your government works. Stop making a fool of yourself and reasearch before you post. And I never claimed they (Congress) didn't know we would have to pay for it (Bush's wars). Your illusions are just too purile to contend with. If you don't know what unfunded means in the context of government jargon then I cannot help you.

You spouted off that the wars were unfunded. Which you can't support. So maybe you should think first, then type.

Oh, yeah, I have "supported ' the fact that Bush's two wars were unfunded. You are just too obtuse to see what is right in front of you. Why don't you write your Republican congressperson and ask him/her?

 

[william the wie]

Unfunded excludes taxes, inflation and borrowing as sources of funding, you are making a source of funding argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

Oh, yeah, I have "supported ' the fact that Bush's two wars were unfunded. You are just too obtuse to see what is right in front of you. Why don't you write your Republican congressperson and ask him/her?

You made the assertion anyway. Congress budgets and pays the bills and they passed the resolution so you don't even know what you're babbling about. Just because it didn't come out of the standard defense fund does not mean it was unfunded.

 

[Clementine]

????

Sounds like you are offering this up without any due diligence.

Obama does not "make laws himself" he is part of the process to get bills passed into law.

I know that's not what people think, but I saw it on TV when I was a kid.

Cool stuff.

Obama must of missed that program because he ignores and amends laws at will. "Constitutional law professor" What a joke that is

I hear this a lot from people who don't like Obama - can you site an instance where Obama has circumvented the law, amended a law inappropriately or flat out ignored it? The authorities would really be interested if that was the case.

Just a few examples:

Unilaterally pushing back the date on Obamacare. Exempting people from Obamacare.

Making recess appointments when congress is not in recess.

Completely ignoring federal immigration laws and suing states who abide by them.

 

[Stephanie]

We need to overturn every damn Jackboot thing this man and his comrades in arms has put on our necks with his abuse of our government and every agency needs to be DEFUNDED to show them they aren't a government outside of Congress and we the peoples Representives

 

[william the wie]

Phase out is politically possible, repeal is not. When the national subsidies end in 2017 the result will be two way migration that will hurt the Democratic base severely.