YUGE WINNING! Obama's Un-American Mandate Repealed...

[Rustic]

Dummy. If you're on the dole, you are not supporting yourself. You are taking instead of giving. Taxpayers are supporting you. You don't know the difference?

No, the taxpayers are subsidizing cheap labor for the one percent, that's the thing.

I mean, you might be happy subsidizing WalMart's work force, but i'm not.

Right, I'd like to see a machine replace me. The last person that posted a site about manless trucks was a joke. The thing cost over three millions dollars and it could only go straight. Even then they found problems with it.

Yeah, and what did Cell Phones look like in the 1980's?

My job requires too much calculating and instinct. It will be eons before I can be replaced, and more than likely, you will be replaced sooner than I will.

Unlikely. What I do requires education and skill.

What you do anyone who can drive in a straight line can do.

So types of work is not worth even minimum wage...

 

[rightwinger]

Finally a US Congressional achievement i can celebrate. The Mandate is gone. It should have never been allowed to happen. So i have to congratulate and thank the GOP and President Trump bigtime. They ended the Mandate and got some Tax Reform done. A Yuge accomplishment.


Senate GOP repeals ObamaCare Mandate

Senate Republicans have approved the repeal of ObamaCare’s individual mandate as part of their tax-cut bill, a major step toward ending an unpopular part of the health-care law.

“Families ought to be able to make decisions about what they want to buy and what works for them — not the government,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said, hailing the accomplishment.

The Senate tax bill must still be reconciled with House legislation that does not include the mandate’s repeal. But that is unlikely to be a major issue, given support in the GOP conference for repealing the mandate.

Repealing the mandate also saves $300 billion over ten years...

Senate GOP repeals ObamaCare mandate
DRUDGE REPORT 2018®

How are Republicans going to pay for Obamacare?

Were dismantling it... because it failed... No reason to pay for it...

What happens to all the people who lose coverage?
You were supposed to provide them something better

Now you are throwing them to the wolves

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What happens to all the people who lose coverage?
You were supposed to provide them something better

Now you are throwing them to the wolves

If that doesn't sound exactly like ObamaCare, I don't know what does.

 

[JoeB131]

There it is... The entitlement to others labors.... Get off your ass and get more education or find a better job.. ITS ON YOU! Quit blaming others for YOUR FAILURE. Your owed nothing..

Okay, first, learn the difference between you're and your.

second, we have Adjunct professors on food stamps and airline pilots selling the blood plasma. The idea you can "train" you way to prosperity is just plain silly.

Everyone is having to work two jobs to make ends meet is just ******* crazy.

WOW..

Social Security, which I paid into my full life is a benefit! WHICH I PAID FOR! It is not an entitlement... Your Lib demo-crap fools stole the money I PAID IN..

Again, if you live to be 72, you got everything you paid into it back.

I know you guys don't like to call it an entitlement, but it's White People Welfare. Something the government pays out because we don't want to take care of our old and sick.

 

[JoeB131]

You're not subsidizing anybody but the individual. There is no law written where the government MUST put people who don't give a F on welfare. Talk to your friendly neighborhood liberal and tell him or her to cut those programs for people physically and mentally capable of working. Then there won't be any of these subsidizes you speak of. Instead, they will have to work more hours or get two jobs like we used to when we were young. They will try harder to improve their income instead of relying on taxpayers for it.

Um, guy, the thing is, when you have Walmart paying people not-living wages and telling them they can get on welfare, what's the real incentive to make that extra $20.00 to disqualify them from welfare? There isn't one.

This is the taxpayer subsidizing big corporations, nothing more, nothing less.

If I had been allowed to invest all the money I put in I would be a multi millionaire and both my retirement and medical would be paid for, for the rest of my life.

Or you would have lost all your money when the Stock Market crashed in 2008. Or 2001. Or 1990. Or 1987.

What you chuckleheads don't get about casinos--- the house always wins.

 

[Vastator]

You're not subsidizing anybody but the individual. There is no law written where the government MUST put people who don't give a F on welfare. Talk to your friendly neighborhood liberal and tell him or her to cut those programs for people physically and mentally capable of working. Then there won't be any of these subsidizes you speak of. Instead, they will have to work more hours or get two jobs like we used to when we were young. They will try harder to improve their income instead of relying on taxpayers for it.

Um, guy, the thing is, when you have Walmart paying people not-living wages and telling them they can get on welfare, what's the real incentive to make that extra $20.00 to disqualify them from welfare? There isn't one.

This is the taxpayer subsidizing big corporations, nothing more, nothing less.

If I had been allowed to invest all the money I put in I would be a multi millionaire and both my retirement and medical would be paid for, for the rest of my life.

Or you would have lost all your money when the Stock Market crashed in 2008. Or 2001. Or 1990. Or 1987.

What you chuckleheads don't get about casinos--- the house always wins.

But having the freedom to roll those dice, is what America is all about...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Um, guy, the thing is, when you have Walmart paying people not-living wages and telling them they can get on welfare, what's the real incentive to make that extra $20.00 to disqualify them from welfare? There isn't one.

This is the taxpayer subsidizing big corporations, nothing more, nothing less.

That's the most ridiculous argument yet; blaming the companies for political policies. Taxpayers are not subsidizing any company, they are subsidizing the people who work part-time or under 40 hours. Companies have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're blaming the woman for getting raped instead of the rapist.

If we stopped all welfare to working people, companies could care less. It won't cost them one dime. They wouldn't even blink an eye.

 

[JoeB131]

That's the most ridiculous argument yet; blaming the companies for political policies. Taxpayers are not subsidizing any company, they are subsidizing the people who work part-time or under 40 hours. Companies have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're blaming the woman for getting raped instead of the rapist.

Um, no I'm blaming the guy who sold the rapist the knife and the roofies.

Again, who has fought against raising the minimum wage, which has not kept up with inflation? McDonalds, WalMart, etc.

Who uses every recession as an opportunity to knock down wages?

 

[JoeB131]

If we stopped all welfare to working people, companies could care less. It won't cost them one dime. They wouldn't even blink an eye.

Um, yeah, it would. Those people would stop working and go on welfare full time.

 

[Dale Smith]

You're not subsidizing anybody but the individual. There is no law written where the government MUST put people who don't give a F on welfare. Talk to your friendly neighborhood liberal and tell him or her to cut those programs for people physically and mentally capable of working. Then there won't be any of these subsidizes you speak of. Instead, they will have to work more hours or get two jobs like we used to when we were young. They will try harder to improve their income instead of relying on taxpayers for it.

Um, guy, the thing is, when you have Walmart paying people not-living wages and telling them they can get on welfare, what's the real incentive to make that extra $20.00 to disqualify them from welfare? There isn't one.

This is the taxpayer subsidizing big corporations, nothing more, nothing less.

If I had been allowed to invest all the money I put in I would be a multi millionaire and both my retirement and medical would be paid for, for the rest of my life.

Or you would have lost all your money when the Stock Market crashed in 2008. Or 2001. Or 1990. Or 1987.

What you chuckleheads don't get about casinos--- the house always wins.

Hell has just frozen over.......I actually agree with everything in your post.......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the most ridiculous argument yet; blaming the companies for political policies. Taxpayers are not subsidizing any company, they are subsidizing the people who work part-time or under 40 hours. Companies have absolutely nothing to do with it. You're blaming the woman for getting raped instead of the rapist.

Um, no I'm blaming the guy who sold the rapist the knife and the roofies.

Again, who has fought against raising the minimum wage, which has not kept up with inflation? McDonalds, WalMart, etc.

Who uses every recession as an opportunity to knock down wages?

How did McDonald's and Walmart fight minimum wage increases? Do you have a video of their CEO's at the halls of Congress speaking against it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If we stopped all welfare to working people, companies could care less. It won't cost them one dime. They wouldn't even blink an eye.

Um, yeah, it would. Those people would stop working and go on welfare full time.

And they would just hire replacements. They couldn't care less.

 

[JoeB131]

Hell has just frozen over.......I actually agree with everything in your post.......

Meds are working today?

 

[JoeB131]

How did McDonald's and Walmart fight minimum wage increases? Do you have a video of their CEO's at the halls of Congress speaking against it?

Here's an article where they were crying poverty when someone suggested a living wage.

Why Wal-Mart can NOT afford to pay workers a $15 minimum wage

 

[JoeB131]

And they would just hire replacements. They couldn't care less.

And that's the problem.

Now let's say we had a system were everyone was guaranteed a job that paid a living wage. You could do a carveout for teens, I guess, call it a training wage, but the minute he hits 18, you bring him up to the min wage.

 

[Dale Smith]

Hell has just frozen over.......I actually agree with everything in your post.......

Meds are working today?

I do not take meds, Joe............do you?

 

[JoeB131]

I do not take meds, Joe............do you?

No, but you probably need to.

 

[Dale Smith]

I do not take meds, Joe............do you?

No, but you probably need to.

Since your post made sense to me? Perhaps I should at least consider it as an option. (snicker)

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I do not take meds, Joe............do you?

No, but you probably need to.

Right there is your problem: you don't take meds.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And they would just hire replacements. They couldn't care less.

And that's the problem.

Now let's say we had a system were everyone was guaranteed a job that paid a living wage. You could do a carveout for teens, I guess, call it a training wage, but the minute he hits 18, you bring him up to the min wage.

I hate to carry on, but let me try to explain this to you:

You can't just raise wages for one group of people. Increasing wages has a domino effect.

A kid gets out of school, finds a job, and starts out at minimum wage. After a year or so, he has been given a few raises and now makes $9:00 an hour. After about three years with the company, he now makes $14.00 an hour.

Then Democrats get in charge and make the federal minimum wage $15.00 an hour. That's fine and dandy, except now that worker is back where he started--at minimum wage.

So he marches to Human Resources and demands that he make at least five bucks an hour more than minimum wage. What choice would they have? They have to pay him.

So now that kid makes $20.00 an hour. Great....... that is until his coworker who has been with the company longer and is making $20.00 an hour finds out about it. Now he marches into HR to demand his huge increase over the high school kid that just got his wages raised to $20.00 an hour. Domino effect

Now inflation takes over because everybody is making so much more money. The problem is that because everybody is making more, cost of living is much more as well, so that minimum wage worker finds himself exactly where he started from before the minimum wage increase.

I have to laugh when I watch one of my favorite shows, the Property Brothers. They usually have episodes in areas like yours, California, and mostly the NE states where inflation is so out of control. Their million dollar homes are something you can buy here for about $400,000. That's because we kept our inflation down by not being so pro-union here. We try to keep our taxes down and wages follow.

Another problems is that we are competing against a world market. When we all make more money, it reduces our ability to compete with foreign markets, and more jobs move overseas.

So what was actually accomplished here?