"You didn't get there on your own"

[P@triot]

This year is the fifth straight fiscal year “in which the federal government has increased its debt by more than a trillion dollars,” reports CNSNews.com.

Great work Obama - thanks for collapsing what took 235 years and hundreds of thousands of lives to build....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama
Jul 28, 2012

Entrepreneurs say, 'We did build this'
Outraged small business owners fire back at Obama

Wow. It's like everyone in the country, except for Obama's most slavish worshippers, heard his speech EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My bad, I guess romney wasn't first

Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read

Was just copying off the President then.

Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun. But nice try.

The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?

You're an idiot if you think the IRS's power to seize assets isn't conveyed by the fact that there are armed law enforcement officials who will support them if need be.

The IRS took down Al Capone for tax evasion. How do you suppose they did that? With a crowd of bureaucrats waving reams of paper at him?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

Way to miss the point. Conservatives don't say that businesses don't need civilization; they say that GOVERNMENT isn't where our civilization comes from. Civilization is not some gift benevolently handed to us by the the government and its officials, and we are in no way obligated to thank government for our civilization, or to "give something back" to government over and above what we already contribute.

 

[bripat9643]

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Evidence?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Pravda Reports"
of course, that is news- the gov't says it plans will work
Check out Papa Obama's website- they say it is great, as well



7/23/12 One in 10 employers plans to drop health benefits, study finds

The study found that smaller firms were most likely to say they will drop coverage. Thirteen percent of companies with 50 to 100 workers said they would end policies within three years, compared with 2 percent of companies with more than 1,000 workers.​

Survey: Under ObamaCare, companies could save billions by dropping health insurance coverage

Even after paying a penalty of $2,000 per employee, the companies stand to save $28.6 billion in 2014 alone by shifting employees to health insurance exchanges governed by strict federal standards. The companies stand to save more than $422 billion over the first 10 years of the law by doing this.
"The penalties for the employers who drop coverage are very low, and the subsidies for the workers in the exchanges are very high," said James Capretta, with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

​

So much for if you like your plan you will be able to keep it
Yes unintended consequences and more
costs that were not factored in.....

The law will decrease costs, strengthen businesses and make it easier for employers to provide coverage to their workers.

The Congressional Budget Office added that most employers "will continue to have an economic incentive to offer health insurance to their employees."

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) continue to expect that the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—the health care legislation enacted in March 2010—will lead to a small reduction in the number of people receiving employment-based health insurance. Some observers have expressed surprise that CBO and JCT have not expected a much larger reduction given the expanded eligibility for Medicaid and the subsidies for insurance coverage purchased through health insurance “exchanges” that will result from the ACA. CBO and JCT’s estimates take account of those factors, but they also recognize that the legislation leaves in place some financial incentives and also creates new financial incentives for firms to offer and for many people to obtain health insurance coverage through their employers.

Sure it will

No doubt it will run just as well as the Post Office

You ever been to a welfare office? Welcome to the new and improved version of your doctor's waiting room.

 

[bripat9643]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?

You make the mistake of believing that the same thing motivates Romney as motivates Obama. The later needed the support of the insurance companies to pass his socialist monstrosity. Romney doesn't need their support to repeal it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No point in arguing, Ima just accept the CON$ way of thinking and say that businesses don't need civilization. That is, afterall, what they're pretty much saying.

Did it EVER occur to YOU that Business IS civilization that operates under a set of rules that Government has perverted, and that YOU have bought into the Government meme?

IDIOT.

Is that where the indivdual would foot the cost of things like having the police come out to your house o, well, wouldn't you be charged for everything pretty much? At this point i'm wondering because im not sure....dude

Dear, the individual DOES foot the bill for the cops. Where do you think that tax money comes from? Just because you don't see the bill handed to you point-of-service doesn't mean you're not paying it.

 

[bripat9643]

Will it

smart money says it will go down as the time the Left and Papa Obama
purposely undermined the private sector to force socialized medicine on the public


Didn't Taliban have to first fight the communists- the Soviets

WOW, are you THAT naive? Even if Romney wins and Republicans gain control of both houses, the individual mandate is not going to be removed. Why you ask? Because the private sector insurance companies demanded it.

Wrong, Obama and he Dims in Congress destroyed it.

BTW, please provide ONE country where private sector insurance works?

Name one country where it's allowed to operate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My bad, I guess romney wasn't first

Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own' - First Read

Was just copying off the President then.

Suggesting a round of applause isn't quite the same as imposing additional taxation, which is ultimately enforced at the point of gun. But nice try.

The IRS usually seizes bank assets or garnishes wages and salaries when it is owed money you refuse to pay. Seldom does it require a weapon. I have no idea how we got on the subject of law enforcement - but why not? So go ahead and explain to us how you would prefer the IRS collect unpaid taxes? Should they just ask nicely? Perhaps send a singing telegram?

Does your brain actually work when you are posting? How is garnishing wages not a use of force? How is seizing bank assets not a use of force? Do you think a government that did not have guns could get away with with taking people's money?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you AGAIN for ignoring what Moffit wrote. Maybe you will read what Stuart M. Butler wrote, back when the individual mandate was THEIR invention:

"If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance . . . society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services . . . .

A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. . . . Each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."[1]

[1] Start M. Butler, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans, Heritage Lectures 218, p. 8(1989).

Here is a history lesson for you.

The Individual Mandate, a Brief History — Part I, Conservative Origins

Oh I have and outside of the word mandate
there is not much

state control, catastrophic coverage- Papa Obama care- not

tax credits--- Papa Obama care - not and with a penalty/tax
so yes there is a mandate but the Heritage plan does not
impose a penalty for no coverage- one just loses the tax break

Under Papa ObamaCare each person would be allowed into pools without regard to age or preexisting conditions and the same cost to all of them- This would act as a large regressive cost to everyone in that pool

Fundamentally, Papa Obama always wanted single payer. He and the Democrats tried to get as close to it - But that was curbed by public response to their plans

So what go instead is the "first step" to that goal- Papa ObamaCare

A plan that was designed on purpose for employers to drop employees as quickly as possible into gov't run pools since the penalty is less than the cost of covering them. Insurers will leave the marketplace as the customer base dries up.

Furthermore with penalty/ tax for not having insurance being cheaper than buying
your own insurance, people will just wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance and then billions will be removed from the insurance pool.
It will not take much for this Ponzi scheme to collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again they share the word mandate- that is the majority of similarity.
One was a system designed to be tax credit based system for working people
to get help with catastrophic insurance costs in the market place

The other, PapaObama care is a comprehensive system designed on purpose
to strain the markets, lead to their demise to be replaced by single payer


Again this monstrosity called Papa Obama Care belongs to and is owned
by the Left

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

What? I guess Joseph Antos didn't get that memo.

The Debt Deal Will Undo ObamaCare — The American Magazine

The Uninsured: It Will Get Worse Before It Gets Better — The American Magazine

 

[Bfgrn]

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Evidence?

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett

 

[freedombecki]

Something rarely heard of in the talk of onerous tax burdens and the need to trim government largess in order to relieve us of big government is the host of government expenditures included within the welfare state that benefit the wealthy and corporations to a greater degree than they do ordinary citizens. A few examples are an educated workforce funded or subsidized by taxes, research and development for drugs pharmaceutical giants have patented and sold back to the public, and the medical and ecological agencies that cure, alleviate, or clean up after corporate damage, malfeasance, and waste.

Honorable mention must also go to the courts that regulate and litigate business transactions, the US military, which is used to control and “stabilize” (or destabilize, they don't care which) the world for global trade, and the police who protect the uppity crust from the ever more disenfranchised, disenchanted, and disgruntled rabble down here at the bottom

Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 1st Ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, US 2006, 2007, 67-69

Are those your words or a book quotation? Without a quote box, it's hard to tell.

In either case, if you'll open the link I posted above, you'll find that the author (more generous than I, to be sure)... already pretty much concedes all that. He gives you the entire DoD, for example. He still finds that this type of federal spending is less than 25%. It's just not possible to say that the business community is profiting more than they pay. At best, they're only benefiting by 25% of federal spending, but the top 1% account for 37% of revenues.

Obama's argument fails on every level, but it fails most of all in basic honesty. Because he KNOWS that he could confiscate every dime from the so-called rich and maybe.. maybe.. fund one year of current spending, leaving nothing for any subsequent year. This is political division, created for the sake of garnering votes.

We should ALL be pissed about that. This guy RAN on unity.

My words. I quoted my source.

As to the bolded above, horse shit.

Barb, if only it were. I owned a business for 23 years. Nobody ever ran to my aid the 2 years it was being embezzled, and following that episode, repayment for losses required a full five years of paying them back with interest when I borrowed to keep doors open and employees paid. You couldn't pay me a million bucks to repeat the wrenching that horrible series of thefts placed on my little world of barely making it through the years by the seat of my pants. Thieving employees take something away from their victims business and place distrust and loss of health with it. The entire time, that employee took what little my business home while I was at the bank every two weeks, wondering what was going on to make merchandise march out the door and not enough receipts to replace that. It wasn't until all other employees left and it was just the two of us that the crimes done were revealed through daily acts of theft I won'[t go into here.

In the end, you may have irrefutable accounting and eyewitness proofs of theft, but in a small town, you have zero trust left for that person's associates, all of whom caterwaul (without knowing) that you are rich by virtue of being your own boss while they are poor, whereas you as a business owner haven't a fraction of their take-home power from the profitable businesses they gather to.

I'm not sure that will mean anything to anyone, but it was a lesson in not ever being somebody else's chump for more than a week. That went on for two years, and the sinister thefts were uncovered by me by sheer accident of stumbling upon a red-handed catch so clear it was irrefutable in and of itself. The feedback I got came through an enraged friend who believed only the lies of a con artist and dissed me, the person who was holding the bag and was bound by employment laws of not being able to discuss the length, depth, and loss inflicted on the business by an employee. The law is clear. Employers may not discuss any personal thing about their employee to another employer except date hired and date left. Proving a 30,000 to 40,000 heist could cost you $100,000 in lawyer and accountant fees. Every time I see a "going out of business" sign, I wonder who hit them, and how much was stolen for that sign to be posted outside the door, and the people cleaning shelves could be bank employees trying to recover everybody's hurt from that worker, protected by his own lies to pals who pity and buy the hubris.

I'd rethink what I said to Murf. He may have a hands-on knowledge his case is built on solid rock.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Attention: This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform. There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.

This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.

Good point
but the Left's lies are so hard to ignore some time


I am guilty of continuing with the leftist
If only Papa ObamaCare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) death panels
were in place, I could turn myself in for the good of the collective's health

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. The bottom line here is Obama and his idea of government wants to own you.
2. His ideals are based on control, controlling everything.
3. Obama should of been born in China, his ideals fit the dictators, and leaders of China.
4. He isn't a *True Blue American* no one can argue against that.
5. Why did he become President?
6. *American Guilt*, plain and simple, *White Guilt* got him elected, and mainly those in the middle the *Independents* allowed this individual into the Presidency, which he didn't have any business getting, also the appeasers wanted to get this known Muslim into office to get the ******* Muslims off our backs, which it has partially worked, but don't count on it lasting.
7. The Independents, along with the liberal parrots, fucked us all.
8. There is your answers.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Foxfyre]

Attention: This thread is NOT about Health Care Reform. There are many many threads out there to discuss healthcare reform.

This thread is about American business and how much it owes to Obama and the government.

Good point
but the Left's lies are so hard to ignore some time


I am guilty of continuing with the leftist
If only Papa ObamaCare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) death panels
were in place, I could turn myself in for the good of the collective's health

Obamacare is pertinent to this discussion only in the sense that it helps or hurts business. Of course Obama will take the position that Obamacare will do nothing but help business and thereby take more credit for what we the business people of the world add to the economy. Those who have actually evaluated it may or may not agree that it will be the total disaster as some see it, but I haven't found anybody credible yet who doesn't know that it WILL raise taxes and it WILL be much more costly than anything the federal government has admitted and it will NOT reduce healthcare costs.

And of course to cover the escalating costs, it is important to tax business more.

Becki hit the nail on the head re how a bad employee is so detrimental to a business and conversely, how valuable the honest, productive, and ambitious employee can be.

Likewise bad government is detrimental to business and becomes a kind of theft. It is also possible for government to put policy and regulation in place that encourages free enterprise, commerce, and industry and allows American business to thrive. But such good government may pat itself on the back for facilitating a strong economy, but it won't take credit for the success of the successful business.

 

[bripat9643]

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Evidence?

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett

Please quote the text that supports your claim. I'm not going to read the entire article.

 

[Foxfyre]

Evidence?

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett

Please quote the text that supports your claim. I'm not going to read the entire article.

Oh God, now you're encouraging him to spam the thread with pages and pages more of irrelevent and nonsensical garbage that he will claim supports his point of view.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gee, then I guess the American Enterprise Institute is also part of the 'left', because American Enterprise Institute "scholars" were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Evidence?

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind | by Bruce Bartlett

You consider the fact that David Frum being fired after penning a column that called the ACA a defeat of free market and conservative principles proof that AEI scholars were banned from speaking to the media because they agreed with Obama?

Does you brain actually work?

By the way, why was David Frum actively writing columns if he was forbidden to talk to the media?

 

[Listening]

Obamacare is pertinent to this discussion only in the sense that it helps or hurts business. Of course Obama will take the position that Obamacare will do nothing but help business and thereby take more credit for what we the business people of the world add to the economy. Those who have actually evaluated it may or may not agree that it will be the total disaster as some see it, but I haven't found anybody credible yet who doesn't know that it WILL raise taxes and it WILL be much more costly than anything the federal government has admitted and it will NOT reduce healthcare costs.

And of course to cover the escalating costs, it is important to tax business more.

Becki hit the nail on the head re how a bad employee is so detrimental to a business and conversely, how valuable the honest, productive, and ambitious employee can be.

Likewise bad government is detrimental to business and becomes a kind of theft. It is also possible for government to put policy and regulation in place that encourages free enterprise, commerce, and industry and allows American business to thrive. But such good government may pat itself on the back for facilitating a strong economy, but it won't take credit for the success of the successful business.

O.K.

Here is another "government built it" moment.

I worked for a large company and our division was facing two sex discrimination suites. They were pretty high profile.

All the managers were getting pounded on diversity and the like. We had an admin staff to our engineering group that had a white supervisor with four white subordinates, three black and one hispanic. Three of these people were notorious incompetents who happened to be coupled with bad attitudes (and I mean bad). Two of them were black and one was white.

A constant conversation was why we didn't fire their asses and the response was around the repercussions in court that would come. So we lived with them.

You got what you got from one of them and if you dare said anything about it not being enough, you'd get an earful. It was never cooperative. People simply bypassed them and did not ask them for help. I don't know what they did during the day.

For me, it all got clear when, one day....one of the black goof-offs took on the supervisor in the supervisors office where everyone could hear her (the supervisor was giving her formal reprimand for a whole list of stuff). She went at the supervisor with all kinds of accusations all the while saying she was going to use all the tricks (discrimination ,etc.) if the supervisor dared to put anything in her personal file that was negative.

She won. The super was told to stand down and deal with it. The troublemaker got the to the point where she would come in late, take a two hour lunch (I was thinking we should encourage her to take longer) and leave early. An attempt was made to transfer her to a different department, but you can bet the other department was not at all interested.

All thanks to the government and it's willingness to support the kind of laws, rules, and regulations regarding employees.

Morale in the department was low and it really did become something of joke that this was allowed to go on all because of the cost and publicity associated with getting rid of her. I complained to my boss who simply said I should not worry about the issue.

To their credit, the other two "problems" saw the contrast and heard the whisperings. It was noted that about six months after the blow up I described above....these two had shown a marked willingness to cooperate and to become more a part of the engineering groups efforts.

Ms. Bum was still in the department two years after the incident.

I've seen this over and over again in other places.

Instead of firing them, they get settled into the place where they can do the least harm and take up a salary someone else might work to get.