mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Whenever a seven-day trend comes along you see fit to disregard a four-year long pattern. Why is that?
What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
Whenever a seven-day trend comes along you see fit to disregard a four-year long pattern. Why is that?
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 72,654
protein strengthens bones along with calcium. both nutrients are necessary.
derp!
derp!
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
mirrors
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 72,654
All them red states are gonna miss the food stamps most of their constituency depends on once their reps fuck it up for 'em...
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
47% of American's are working full time jobs. I wonder how many are living the obama welfare dream?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 58,312
Itf there was such a thing a lot of people would be living it. It is however just a story conservatives tell to scare children into eating their brocolli.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Buyer’s Remorse: Another Union Comes Out Against Obamacare…
You will not be surprised to learn the IBEW endorsed Obama for president.
Via Daily Caller:
Another union is crying foul over what it says is Obamacare’s negative impact on its members’ current healthcare coverage under multi-employer plans.
“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what,” the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) quotes a speech President Obama delivered on July 16, 2009 in new ads running in Roll Call and The Hill.
According to the union, the multi-employer plans IBEW has used for over 65 years to provide coverage for their members are at risk, thanks to what it terms “loopholes in the Affordable Care Act.
“The ACA threatens the viability of multi-employer health plans in four ways: 1) the high employee threshold of the employer mandate 2) the re-insurance fee, 3) the definition of qualified health plans, and 4) the lack of multi-employer specific administrative guidance. We believe it may be impossible to reverse the damage done to these plans if these issues are not resolved. The IBEW cannot afford to sit on the sidelines at the ACA threatens to harm our members by dismantling multi-employer plans,” the IBEW explains in a statement released Thursday.
You will not be surprised to learn the IBEW endorsed Obama for president.
Via Daily Caller:
Another union is crying foul over what it says is Obamacare’s negative impact on its members’ current healthcare coverage under multi-employer plans.
“If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what,” the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) quotes a speech President Obama delivered on July 16, 2009 in new ads running in Roll Call and The Hill.
According to the union, the multi-employer plans IBEW has used for over 65 years to provide coverage for their members are at risk, thanks to what it terms “loopholes in the Affordable Care Act.
“The ACA threatens the viability of multi-employer health plans in four ways: 1) the high employee threshold of the employer mandate 2) the re-insurance fee, 3) the definition of qualified health plans, and 4) the lack of multi-employer specific administrative guidance. We believe it may be impossible to reverse the damage done to these plans if these issues are not resolved. The IBEW cannot afford to sit on the sidelines at the ACA threatens to harm our members by dismantling multi-employer plans,” the IBEW explains in a statement released Thursday.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
The 47%'ers were the servers and the cooks and the cleaners
Hero Of The Working Class Barack Obama Hits Elitist-Only $32,400 Per Head Fundraiser…
Via Keith Koffler:
President Obama this evening is at Washington’s Jefferson Hotel chairing a cozy gathering of about two dozen really rich Democrats who have paid $32,400 apiece for this special moment.
Proceeds go to the Democratic National Committee and thus the Campaign to Make Congress Democratic in 2014 and Allow Obama to Rule by Fiat. At least, more by fiat than he is already ruling by fiat.
Obama raising nearly $1 million in an evening from just a few people is okay, of course, because it’s for Democrats and therefore will help save the planet and so forth.
Hero Of The Working Class Barack Obama Hits Elitist-Only $32,400 Per Head Fundraiser…
Via Keith Koffler:
President Obama this evening is at Washington’s Jefferson Hotel chairing a cozy gathering of about two dozen really rich Democrats who have paid $32,400 apiece for this special moment.
Proceeds go to the Democratic National Committee and thus the Campaign to Make Congress Democratic in 2014 and Allow Obama to Rule by Fiat. At least, more by fiat than he is already ruling by fiat.
Obama raising nearly $1 million in an evening from just a few people is okay, of course, because it’s for Democrats and therefore will help save the planet and so forth.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
LIBZ and DUMZ have no shame
Truth is, they shouldn't have any
53% of the country is SO STEW PID, they believe all the LIES
WaPo Fact Checks Pelosi’s Claim Employer Mandate “Was Not Delayed” … Gives Her 3 Pinocchios, Says She’s “Denying Reality”…
Which was blatantly obvious from the second she said it.
Via WaPo:
“The point is, is that the mandate was not delayed. Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, and partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses, and there shouldn’t be a delay of the mandate for individuals.”
— House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), news conference [...]
The Pinocchio Test
Encouraging employers to provide health insurance is not the same thing as mandating it. We understand Pelosi’s desire to minimize the impact of the decision — and supporters of the law may have a strong case that the employer mandate is not as central to the law as the individual mandate to buy insurance — but that’s not an excuse to deny reality.
Yes, reporting requirements were delayed. But, as a consequence of that action, there also was a one-year delay of the actual employer mandate. It’s right there in the announcement.
Update: Some readers have asked why this claim did not result in Four Pinocchios. We initially were tempted to award that rating, but decided that Pelosi did describe correctly what Treasury did, which is delay reporting requirements. But she then acted as if there was no consequence, which is incorrect. The difference between a Three and a Four is sometimes narrow, and we ultimately concluded she just missed earning a Four. But it was certainly a close call
Truth is, they shouldn't have any
53% of the country is SO STEW PID, they believe all the LIES
WaPo Fact Checks Pelosi’s Claim Employer Mandate “Was Not Delayed” … Gives Her 3 Pinocchios, Says She’s “Denying Reality”…
Which was blatantly obvious from the second she said it.
Via WaPo:
“The point is, is that the mandate was not delayed. Certain reporting by businesses that could be perceived as onerous, that reporting requirement was delayed, and partially to review how it would work and how it could be better. It was not a delay of the mandate for the businesses, and there shouldn’t be a delay of the mandate for individuals.”
— House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), news conference [...]
The Pinocchio Test
Encouraging employers to provide health insurance is not the same thing as mandating it. We understand Pelosi’s desire to minimize the impact of the decision — and supporters of the law may have a strong case that the employer mandate is not as central to the law as the individual mandate to buy insurance — but that’s not an excuse to deny reality.
Yes, reporting requirements were delayed. But, as a consequence of that action, there also was a one-year delay of the actual employer mandate. It’s right there in the announcement.
Update: Some readers have asked why this claim did not result in Four Pinocchios. We initially were tempted to award that rating, but decided that Pelosi did describe correctly what Treasury did, which is delay reporting requirements. But she then acted as if there was no consequence, which is incorrect. The difference between a Three and a Four is sometimes narrow, and we ultimately concluded she just missed earning a Four. But it was certainly a close call
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
A Wageless Recovery
Drawing from data from the federal government’s Occupational Employment Statistics, the National Employment Law Project has released a study of hourly wages for the U.S. economy during the period of 2009–2012. Though this period has been called a “recovery,” hourly wages have, when adjusted for inflation, fallen across the economic spectrum.
However, this decline has been particularly sharp for lower-paid jobs. Jobs in the first quintile (making between $8.78 and $10.60 an hour) saw their wages decline 3 percent. Jobs in the second quintile ($10.61 to $14.21 an hour) saw the biggest collapse, losing 4.1 percent. Jobs in the third quintile of wages ($14.23 to $18.83 an hour) saw a 3.1 percent decline. Jobs in the upper 40 percent of hourly wages saw a smaller decline (a little under 2 percent). Many of the low-wage jobs with the greatest number of workers saw large decreases. As NELP writes in its report, “Occupational wage declines were especially marked, at -5.0 percent or steeper, for cooks, personal care aides, home health aides, food prep workers, and maids and housekeeping cleaners.” Restaurant cooks experienced especially large declines — their median hourly income was slashed by more than 7 percent.
Though NELP focused on the downward trend in low-wage jobs, this decline is not simply concentrated among those without college degrees. High-tech fields also had wages decrease. When adjusted for inflation, the median hourly income of a computer programmer has fallen by 2.5 percent between 2010 and 2012.
This decline shows how anemic the so-called “recovery” has been. But it also highlights broader tendencies. As Felix Salmon’s extensive charts show, many lower-income jobs saw wage growth that fell behind inflation in the 2007–2012 period.
The biggest single detailed occupation listed by the OES is “retail salesperson.” Over 4.3 million Americans fit into this category, and their median hourly wages have fallen by 2.6 percent between 2009 and 2012, according to NELP. But this decline cannot be blamed solely on the failed recovery – between 2002 and 2012, median hourly wages fell 6.5 percent.
It’s true that OES wage data does not consider all forms of compensation (such as health-care coverage), but this study might explain why many Americans feel poorer; when adjusted for inflation, their paychecks are getting smaller.
It is also true that individuals are not locked in the same job for year after year. They can be promoted within a given field or switch jobs to gain higher compensation. But there are plenty of individuals who do remain in a single job over a longer period of time, and, with the shrinking job market of the past few years, it can be harder to find a new job.
These numbers also frame the current debate about immigration. Republican allies of the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach have rallied behind guest-worker programs and an escalation of “low skilled” immigration. Meanwhile, supporters of pro-worker immigration reform have drawn attention to the effects of the Senate’s and White House’s immigration agenda on low-wage workers. The findings of this study suggest that American workers have already seen their bargaining power in the marketplace weaken, and it is plausible that the Senate’s immigration bill (or any immigration bill that maintains the essential premises of the Senate bill) could weaken the worker’s position even more.
Thus declining economic opportunity raises important issues for conservatives. A small-government vision is strengthened by a dynamic economy where a rising economic tide lifts all boats, so continued — and perhaps increasing — downward pressure on wages poses significant troubles for the realization of this vision. Conservatives serious about reviving this small-government vision should also be serious about reviving broad-reaching economic opportunity. And a policy measure that hinders this revival of opportunity could also hamper the project of Republican renewal.
Drawing from data from the federal government’s Occupational Employment Statistics, the National Employment Law Project has released a study of hourly wages for the U.S. economy during the period of 2009–2012. Though this period has been called a “recovery,” hourly wages have, when adjusted for inflation, fallen across the economic spectrum.
However, this decline has been particularly sharp for lower-paid jobs. Jobs in the first quintile (making between $8.78 and $10.60 an hour) saw their wages decline 3 percent. Jobs in the second quintile ($10.61 to $14.21 an hour) saw the biggest collapse, losing 4.1 percent. Jobs in the third quintile of wages ($14.23 to $18.83 an hour) saw a 3.1 percent decline. Jobs in the upper 40 percent of hourly wages saw a smaller decline (a little under 2 percent). Many of the low-wage jobs with the greatest number of workers saw large decreases. As NELP writes in its report, “Occupational wage declines were especially marked, at -5.0 percent or steeper, for cooks, personal care aides, home health aides, food prep workers, and maids and housekeeping cleaners.” Restaurant cooks experienced especially large declines — their median hourly income was slashed by more than 7 percent.
Though NELP focused on the downward trend in low-wage jobs, this decline is not simply concentrated among those without college degrees. High-tech fields also had wages decrease. When adjusted for inflation, the median hourly income of a computer programmer has fallen by 2.5 percent between 2010 and 2012.
This decline shows how anemic the so-called “recovery” has been. But it also highlights broader tendencies. As Felix Salmon’s extensive charts show, many lower-income jobs saw wage growth that fell behind inflation in the 2007–2012 period.
The biggest single detailed occupation listed by the OES is “retail salesperson.” Over 4.3 million Americans fit into this category, and their median hourly wages have fallen by 2.6 percent between 2009 and 2012, according to NELP. But this decline cannot be blamed solely on the failed recovery – between 2002 and 2012, median hourly wages fell 6.5 percent.
It’s true that OES wage data does not consider all forms of compensation (such as health-care coverage), but this study might explain why many Americans feel poorer; when adjusted for inflation, their paychecks are getting smaller.
It is also true that individuals are not locked in the same job for year after year. They can be promoted within a given field or switch jobs to gain higher compensation. But there are plenty of individuals who do remain in a single job over a longer period of time, and, with the shrinking job market of the past few years, it can be harder to find a new job.
These numbers also frame the current debate about immigration. Republican allies of the Senate’s “comprehensive” approach have rallied behind guest-worker programs and an escalation of “low skilled” immigration. Meanwhile, supporters of pro-worker immigration reform have drawn attention to the effects of the Senate’s and White House’s immigration agenda on low-wage workers. The findings of this study suggest that American workers have already seen their bargaining power in the marketplace weaken, and it is plausible that the Senate’s immigration bill (or any immigration bill that maintains the essential premises of the Senate bill) could weaken the worker’s position even more.
Thus declining economic opportunity raises important issues for conservatives. A small-government vision is strengthened by a dynamic economy where a rising economic tide lifts all boats, so continued — and perhaps increasing — downward pressure on wages poses significant troubles for the realization of this vision. Conservatives serious about reviving this small-government vision should also be serious about reviving broad-reaching economic opportunity. And a policy measure that hinders this revival of opportunity could also hamper the project of Republican renewal.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Repeal It All
By John Barrasso
The Obama administration has finally admitted that its health-care law places a tremendous burden on America’s job creators. In the wake of its decision to delay the law’s “employer mandate,” it is also clear how bad the law will be for anyone trying to make a living in this country.
A recent article in the New York Times put a human face on the victims of Obamacare by looking at a small Maryland restaurant called Shanty Grille. It made the case as well as any actuarial study or economic model ever could.
The article detailed how the law was hurting everyone from the owner to the uninsured waiter to the insured chef. For each of these people, and millions of others like them across the country, the reality of health care reform has fallen far short of the president’s promises.
According to the Times article, the restaurant’s owner is on pace to finally turn a profit this year. It would be his first since the economic downturn. If he has to provide Washington-approved insurance for every employee, though, that profit would quickly evaporate. For their part, his young workers have not asked for the coverage. They would rather have more money in their paychecks to spend how they want, not how the president thinks they should. And the insured employees are worried that they won’t be able to keep their current coverage.
Stopping this disastrous employer mandate was the right decision. The undeniable truth is, a one-year delay in the policy doesn’t solve the problem, it only extends it. Shanty Grille and many other businesses cannot expand or hire more staff, because they still face the mandate in 2015. Many other businesses are cutting back workers to part-time status because of the health care law. President Obama has nothing to say to those Americans looking for full-time work.
The law still requires all of the employees, like nearly everyone else in America, to buy pricey health insurance starting January 1. Many will end up in the government-run insurance exchanges. These may or may not be ready in time.
We’ve seen ample evidence that even if these exchanges are operational, premiums will be much higher than before the mandate. That’s especially true for young, healthy adults, whom the president expects to pay more so that older, sicker people can pay less.
These weren’t the kinds of reforms Democrats promised when they were forcing their plan through Congress. Republicans made suggestions to improve the health-care law, but we were shut out of the back rooms where Democrats struck their deals.
In the end, the law was drafted so badly that negative side effects and unintended consequences were inevitable. The Times article shows how some of these effects are devastating the lives of millions of Americans, not just those at Shanty Grille.
President Obama likes to hold photo ops with people whom he says the law helps. It’s time for him to meet with people like the ones featured on the front page of the New York Times.
It’s time for the president to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans to really talk about how we can reform health care in this country.
There are many ways we can truly reform America’s health-care system to make it better for everybody. I believe the first step starts with full repeal of the president’s law. Delaying the employer mandate for one year does not eliminate the burdens of this costly legislation.
I hope President Obama’s latest move is a sign he’s willing to consider some other ideas as well. When the American people called for health-care reform, they wanted Washington to focus on reducing costs and making insurance coverage more affordable. It’s time to replace this law with legislation that lets Americans get the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a lower cost.
— John Barrasso, M.D., is a United States senator from Wyoming and chairman of Senate Republican Policy Committee
By John Barrasso
The Obama administration has finally admitted that its health-care law places a tremendous burden on America’s job creators. In the wake of its decision to delay the law’s “employer mandate,” it is also clear how bad the law will be for anyone trying to make a living in this country.
A recent article in the New York Times put a human face on the victims of Obamacare by looking at a small Maryland restaurant called Shanty Grille. It made the case as well as any actuarial study or economic model ever could.
The article detailed how the law was hurting everyone from the owner to the uninsured waiter to the insured chef. For each of these people, and millions of others like them across the country, the reality of health care reform has fallen far short of the president’s promises.
According to the Times article, the restaurant’s owner is on pace to finally turn a profit this year. It would be his first since the economic downturn. If he has to provide Washington-approved insurance for every employee, though, that profit would quickly evaporate. For their part, his young workers have not asked for the coverage. They would rather have more money in their paychecks to spend how they want, not how the president thinks they should. And the insured employees are worried that they won’t be able to keep their current coverage.
Stopping this disastrous employer mandate was the right decision. The undeniable truth is, a one-year delay in the policy doesn’t solve the problem, it only extends it. Shanty Grille and many other businesses cannot expand or hire more staff, because they still face the mandate in 2015. Many other businesses are cutting back workers to part-time status because of the health care law. President Obama has nothing to say to those Americans looking for full-time work.
The law still requires all of the employees, like nearly everyone else in America, to buy pricey health insurance starting January 1. Many will end up in the government-run insurance exchanges. These may or may not be ready in time.
We’ve seen ample evidence that even if these exchanges are operational, premiums will be much higher than before the mandate. That’s especially true for young, healthy adults, whom the president expects to pay more so that older, sicker people can pay less.
These weren’t the kinds of reforms Democrats promised when they were forcing their plan through Congress. Republicans made suggestions to improve the health-care law, but we were shut out of the back rooms where Democrats struck their deals.
In the end, the law was drafted so badly that negative side effects and unintended consequences were inevitable. The Times article shows how some of these effects are devastating the lives of millions of Americans, not just those at Shanty Grille.
President Obama likes to hold photo ops with people whom he says the law helps. It’s time for him to meet with people like the ones featured on the front page of the New York Times.
It’s time for the president to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans to really talk about how we can reform health care in this country.
There are many ways we can truly reform America’s health-care system to make it better for everybody. I believe the first step starts with full repeal of the president’s law. Delaying the employer mandate for one year does not eliminate the burdens of this costly legislation.
I hope President Obama’s latest move is a sign he’s willing to consider some other ideas as well. When the American people called for health-care reform, they wanted Washington to focus on reducing costs and making insurance coverage more affordable. It’s time to replace this law with legislation that lets Americans get the care they need, from a doctor they choose, at a lower cost.
— John Barrasso, M.D., is a United States senator from Wyoming and chairman of Senate Republican Policy Committee
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
I agree, this is a major problem. However the GOP answer of eliminating the minimum wage and shifting more of the tax burden away from the rich onto low-wage people doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Flat tax and... you want me to just quote some anti-minimum wage Republicans?
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
flat isn't the same as what you said
and YES
quote em.....about eliminating MIN WAGE
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Yes the flat tax shifts the burden to low income people tremendously. It's not debatable. A low income person who pays 0% effective income tax suddenly having to pay a higher effective rate or a VAT gets a large tax hike. Meanwhile the rich get their marginal rate and capital gains rate slashed.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
- Status
