A Look at the Senate Democrats' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

The article you cite points out the glaring problem in your contention that we don't need minimum wage jobs, Daniel! Employers are saying that they can't find skilled workers to fill the positions. So where do skilled workers come from? Do they drop from the skies? No...they have to be trained to do jobs. Executive Chefs don't start out as Executive Chefs. Most of them started as dishwashers and prep cooks...then got promoted to line cook...then sous Chef...and only then did they become Execs. So how does that happen if you take away the entry level dishwasher prep cook jobs that you don't think we need anymore? The answer to that is quite simple...IT DOESN'T!

We don't need low skill low wage jobs under fourteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple.

 

[danielpalos]

sure we do; we simply don't need to subsidize Capitalists with socialism, since they allege to "hate socialism".

No you don't.
If you did, you wouldn't push policies that harm them.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor pay for infrastructure and taxes.

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

And what will people with no job skills and young people starting out do since they'll be excluded from those jobs that "pay more"?

get hired for minimum wage jobs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

Yes, we know you don't care if low-skilled / low-wage workers all lose their jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

No. People who weren't worth more than $10 an hour will not suddenly move on to $15 an hour jobs.

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US.

Exactly! Screw those low skilled losers, eh comrade?

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

Yup. Rich folks will do fine, even if idiot libs keep screwing over the poor.

Higher paid labor creates more demand and consumes more, and pays more in taxes.

Cutting off the bottom rungs of the job ladder means fewer jobs, less demand, less supply, less taxes.

 

[Oldstyle]

How does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

The article you cite points out the glaring problem in your contention that we don't need minimum wage jobs, Daniel! Employers are saying that they can't find skilled workers to fill the positions. So where do skilled workers come from? Do they drop from the skies? No...they have to be trained to do jobs. Executive Chefs don't start out as Executive Chefs. Most of them started as dishwashers and prep cooks...then got promoted to line cook...then sous Chef...and only then did they become Execs. So how does that happen if you take away the entry level dishwasher prep cook jobs that you don't think we need anymore? The answer to that is quite simple...IT DOESN'T!

We don't need low skill low wage jobs under fourteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple.

Would you as an employer want to spend fifteen dollars an hour to hire someone with no job skills and then have to go to the expense of training them? In case you don't understand how it works in the "real world" trainees screw up right and left...you need to have someone with job skills watching over them to try to keep the damage to a minimum...which means that THEIR productivity takes a hit as well! We do that however in the Private Sector because we NEED skilled workers and the only way to get them is to train them. You liberals seem to think that entry level job holders get "taken advantage of" by their bosses! It's actually nothing like that. New employees cost money. They cost money until they gain job skills.

 

[Slade3200]

According to your BS talking points then yes it would be an F, but those just aren’t true and most people know it. Why then couldn’t a Republican majority congress repeal it ? Something so horribly bad should be an easy repeal. You’re not being honest

The GOP has 52 seats in the Senate...you need 60 votes to repeal legislation once it's been passed. Easy repeal? How so?

That bill was under reconciliation and only need 50 votes to repeal. As you said, the republicans had 52 seats. You do the math tonto

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

 

[Oldstyle]

The GOP has 52 seats in the Senate...you need 60 votes to repeal legislation once it's been passed. Easy repeal? How so?

That bill was under reconciliation and only need 50 votes to repeal. As you said, the republicans had 52 seats. You do the math tonto

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

 

[Oldstyle]

There used to be something in this country called "personal responsibility"! If you wanted to smoke and you got lung cancer...it was your fault...not societies! If you ate like a pig and weighed 600 lbs and had trouble breathing...you're the one to blame! We've got people who do nothing to make themselves healthy and they're always the ones whining the loudest that they need to be taken care of by society! You want to call me cruel for not caring about them? Why should I? They didn't care about themselves...why should I?

 

[Slade3200]

That bill was under reconciliation and only need 50 votes to repeal. As you said, the republicans had 52 seats. You do the math tonto

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Your healthcare shouldn’t be through the roof. But those idiots exist so what is your solution. Don’t treat them? Or perhaps find ways to encourage them to get check ups, get insurance, contribute to the pool of funds that pay for healthcare. Whats you plan on how to fund our healthcare needs?

 

[dudmuck]

That bill was under reconciliation and only need 50 votes to repeal. As you said, the republicans had 52 seats. You do the math tonto

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Because of this reason.
you're paying for profits, not healthcare.

 

[Oldstyle]

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Your healthcare shouldn’t be through the roof. But those idiots exist so what is your solution. Don’t treat them? Or perhaps find ways to encourage them to get check ups, get insurance, contribute to the pool of funds that pay for healthcare. Whats you plan on how to fund our healthcare needs?

If you're going to act like an idiot...pay the price for stupidity! If you want to be obese for twenty years and then whine about becoming a diabetic...then who's fault is that? Mine? So why am I paying to subsidize that idiot's poor choices? Because you think it's my "duty"? I've always "funded" my healthcare needs from the money I made working. Do I wish my healthcare costs were lower? Damn right. Did the ACA do anything to lower my costs? No...it didn't! It raised mine. Why? Because in the opinion of liberals...someone who has worked hard...saved their money...and has reached upper middle class status...OWES those who haven't money out of their pocket! The ACA wasn't a fix of the healthcare system...it was a redistribution of wealth.

 

[Claudette]

A few days ago, Senator Chuck Schumer and other leading Senate Democrats held a press conference to present their infrastructure and tax reform plan. The full title of the bill is SENATE DEMOCRATS' JOBS & INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR AMERICA’S WORKERS: RETURNING THE REPUBLICAN TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE WEALTHY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The Dem plan is actually pretty good. It is only a tax-hike measure compared to the new tax rates under the Trump tax cuts. Compared to the tax rates that existed until last year, it calls for huge tax cuts, even for corporations, in spite of the bill's unfortunately partisan subtitle. If Hillary had proposed this plan during the election, Bernie supporters and other Dems would have skewered her for wanting to "give away hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich." Consider:

* The Dem plan would set the corporate income tax rate at 25%. This is 4 percentage points higher than the Trump rate of 21%, but it's 10 percentage points lower than what the rate was last year and for decades before that. When Mitt Romney proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 25% in 2012, Dems attacked the idea as a "tax cut for the rich."

* The Dem plan would leave intact all of the Trump tax cuts for personal income taxes, with the sole exception of the top marginal rate, which would go back to the previous rate of 39.6%, which would still be lower than it was for most of Reagan's presidency. Moreover, the Dem plan would maintain the Trump threshold of $600K for the top bracket.

* As mentioned, the Dem plan would keep *all* of the massive Trump tax cuts for the middle-income brackets. It would also maintain the Trump tax-cut provisions of capping SALT deductions at $10K and of capping mortgage-interest deductions.

* The Dem plan would return the death tax (the estate tax) to 2017 levels, which were an improvement over the rates for most of the previous four decades, and it would also return to the previous GOP-backed threshold of $5.49 million for exemption from the tax (vs. $11 million under the Trump tax cuts).

* The Dem plan would bring back the AMT, a very bad, baffling move. But, the AMT only affected people who made over 120K (single)/160K (married), and it did not really bite anyone until they started making over $300K, and even then the bite was not draconian.

* The Dem plan would leave intact Trump's special repatriation rate of 13.5% for American corporate money parked overseas.

* The Dem plan would close the carried-interest loophole, something that should have been done with the Trump tax cuts.

* The Dem plan would use the assumed savings vs. the Trump tax cuts to fund $1 trillion in infrastructure spending, and even most conservative think tanks agree that infrastructure spending usually largely pays for itself and sometimes gives us a large net gain. Trump has called for at least $1.6 trillion in infrastructure spending.

The Dem plan is not bad at all, but it is not as good as the Trump tax-cut bill and the Trump infrastructure-spending proposal. The Dem plan is a non-starter as long as the GOP controls the Senate, but it is really a pretty good plan.

Full text of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan.pdf

Executive summary of the bill:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Senate Democrats' Jobs and Infrastructure Plan One Pager.pdf

And the chance of this plan making it into law is about as likely as the NRA proposing a repeal of the 2nd amendment. This is clearly campaign propaganda for the midterms.

LMAO Gotta agree. The Dems are all about RAISING taxes. Not cutting them.

They have piggybacked the whole thing on the Trump tax cuts.

Only a blind idiot wouldn't realize what they are doing which is trying to get elected in the mid terms.

 

[Claudette]

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Because of this reason.
you're paying for profits, not healthcare.

That bill was under reconciliation and only need 50 votes to repeal. As you said, the republicans had 52 seats. You do the math tonto

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

I agree.

I've never used my benefits. I've paid for them my whole working life.

Under the ACA my costs went up by 60% while my tax money went to take care of idiots who couldn't or wouldn't take care of themselves.

Our country is loaded with freeloaders and we will be suffering with them as long as idiots run this country.

 

[danielpalos]

why not, if employers need labor?

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US.

Exactly! Screw those low skilled losers, eh comrade?

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

Yup. Rich folks will do fine, even if idiot libs keep screwing over the poor.

Higher paid labor creates more demand and consumes more, and pays more in taxes.

Cutting off the bottom rungs of the job ladder means fewer jobs, less demand, less supply, less taxes.

the minimum wage is still the minimum wage. and, higher paid labor creates more demand, pays more in consumption, and other local taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

the only jobs left will pay more.

Obviously, people who produce less than $15 an hour of value will lose their jobs.

I'll ask again, how does destroying low skill jobs help pay for infrastructure and taxes?

We really don't care if we lose low wage jobs.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage helps Labor move on to these positions:

U.S. job openings hit record high, nearly 6.2 million

The article you cite points out the glaring problem in your contention that we don't need minimum wage jobs, Daniel! Employers are saying that they can't find skilled workers to fill the positions. So where do skilled workers come from? Do they drop from the skies? No...they have to be trained to do jobs. Executive Chefs don't start out as Executive Chefs. Most of them started as dishwashers and prep cooks...then got promoted to line cook...then sous Chef...and only then did they become Execs. So how does that happen if you take away the entry level dishwasher prep cook jobs that you don't think we need anymore? The answer to that is quite simple...IT DOESN'T!

We don't need low skill low wage jobs under fourteen dollars an hour. It really is that simple.

Would you as an employer want to spend fifteen dollars an hour to hire someone with no job skills and then have to go to the expense of training them? In case you don't understand how it works in the "real world" trainees screw up right and left...you need to have someone with job skills watching over them to try to keep the damage to a minimum...which means that THEIR productivity takes a hit as well! We do that however in the Private Sector because we NEED skilled workers and the only way to get them is to train them. You liberals seem to think that entry level job holders get "taken advantage of" by their bosses! It's actually nothing like that. New employees cost money. They cost money until they gain job skills.

How is that, Labor's problem? Let's put it this way, "You guys get all kinds of tax breaks anyway and can afford entire departments to help with rational choice theory or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, if necessary."

Stop whining, "richer guys with more money", have more solutions, not more complaints.

 

[Slade3200]

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Your healthcare shouldn’t be through the roof. But those idiots exist so what is your solution. Don’t treat them? Or perhaps find ways to encourage them to get check ups, get insurance, contribute to the pool of funds that pay for healthcare. Whats you plan on how to fund our healthcare needs?

If you're going to act like an idiot...pay the price for stupidity! If you want to be obese for twenty years and then whine about becoming a diabetic...then who's fault is that? Mine? So why am I paying to subsidize that idiot's poor choices? Because you think it's my "duty"? I've always "funded" my healthcare needs from the money I made working. Do I wish my healthcare costs were lower? Damn right. Did the ACA do anything to lower my costs? No...it didn't! It raised mine. Why? Because in the opinion of liberals...someone who has worked hard...saved their money...and has reached upper middle class status...OWES those who haven't money out of their pocket! The ACA wasn't a fix of the healthcare system...it was a redistribution of wealth.

So to be clear your answer is to cut the fat by not paying for the treatment of poor uninsured people who have made bad choices by either living an unhealthy lifestyle or not going to regular doctor check ups. So we let those people suffer and die, save a few bucks. Is that right?

Now what do we do with the most expensive element, people with preexisting conditions?

 

[Slade3200]

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Because of this reason.
you're paying for profits, not healthcare.

You don't understand how our government works obviously, Lone Ranger! Under the budget procedure known as reconciliation, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover. Easy repeal? Not at all.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

I agree.

I've never used my benefits. I've paid for them my whole working life.

Under the ACA my costs went up by 60% while my tax money went to take care of idiots who couldn't or wouldn't take care of themselves.

Our country is loaded with freeloaders and we will be suffering with them as long as idiots run this country.

Did your healthcare costs go up during the 10 years before the ACA? If so by how much?

 

[Claudette]

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

Because of this reason.
you're paying for profits, not healthcare.

It’s pretty straight forward, they only needed 50 votes to repeal or defund Obama care if you like the sound of that better. It would then be their responsibility to replace it with a functional system that would work better. The replacement would take change the rules that you mentioned. Obviously they have been running as political critics without the aptitude to find a real solution that would work better than a “made to fail, expensive, job killing, healthcare time bomb” as you all like to describe it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention, Slade because they HAVE used reconciliation to repeal ACA subsidies, taxes and penalties. As for replacing it with something that works better? That wouldn't be hard since the ACA was designed by liberals to fail in the first place. What's going to be hard is giving people huge subsidies, letting them still sign up for insurance even though they have pre-existing conditions while not bankrupting the US! You liberals GAVE people goodies without paying for them. You broke it...YOU FIX IT!

That’s an interesting perspective. Let’s try looking at it this way... people get sick, they suffer and they die... it doesn’t matter if they are rich or poor, insured or not, they need treatment. We are the richest nation on earth so you tell me what do we do... do we treat the sick and suffering or not... if we do how do we pay for it?

I have no problem with treating the sick. What I have a problem with is setting up a system where someone can totally fail to take care of themselves for decades...smoking...eating a terrible diet...never working out...and then when their health fails "society" for some reason needs to step in and SAVE them! Explain to me why my healthcare should be through the roof to pay for treatment for THOSE idiots when I've done none of those bad things and my health is good?

I agree.

I've never used my benefits. I've paid for them my whole working life.

Under the ACA my costs went up by 60% while my tax money went to take care of idiots who couldn't or wouldn't take care of themselves.

Our country is loaded with freeloaders and we will be suffering with them as long as idiots run this country.

Did your healthcare costs go up during the 10 years before the ACA? If so by how much?

Sure they went up at a very miniscule amount. In fact most of the time the costs stayed the same. When I first started working my benefits cost all of 4.50 cents a week.

The ACA put a strain on everyone who has benefits that they pay for. As I said. Mine went up by 60% and I'm not the only one.

 

[danielpalos]

if tariffs are ok; then how can paying labor more, be bad.

 

[danielpalos]

We know right wing, Right to Work States will never solve the homeless problem, even with alleged, right to work in those States.

Left wing, new cities can solve our problems!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If an employer needs labor worth $10/hour in value added and you force them to pay $15/hour
they'll figure something out that doesn't lose them $5/hour.

That something won't be hiring the low skilled worker at $15/hour.

It's simple economics, which explains why it's over your head.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US. First worlds are expensive.

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

we don't care if we lose low wage jobs in the US.

Exactly! Screw those low skilled losers, eh comrade?

Higher paid labor simply spends more and pays more in taxes.

Yup. Rich folks will do fine, even if idiot libs keep screwing over the poor.

Higher paid labor creates more demand and consumes more, and pays more in taxes.

Cutting off the bottom rungs of the job ladder means fewer jobs, less demand, less supply, less taxes.

the minimum wage is still the minimum wage. and, higher paid labor creates more demand, pays more in consumption, and other local taxes.

The supply and demand curve still works.
That's why your "idea" is moronic.