- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Obamacre clown show: Businesses can't make staffing decisions due to law
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/11/14 at 2:47 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Okay.
why give me that link, and not tell me where you actually saw that info? and why be a choad about it? quote:
No comment on the actual, you know, content?
what about it? i've commented on it plenty already here. the first phrase of the thread title is a great description.
0
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:12 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You'd be OK if the next president decided "screw it, we're not going to enforce the Clean Water Act." for example?
Uh, certain parts of it, yeah. You wouldn't?
quote:
Secondly, you don't see a problem with the premise...
Are you kidding? I see all sorts of problems with the 'tax code'.
But then I'm not your typical American law freak. I break laws I don't agree with all the time.
I just wanted to get at where the outrage was. It seemed entirely mis-directed on page 1 towards thinking that businesses were suddenly be subject to perjury charges beyond their control.
Employers will still be able to reduce their staff.
The vast majority of businesses will be unaffected by this.
I'm not surprised at all at how the President is manipulating this law based on the method under which it was 'passed'. All this outrage seems a bit contrived, imo.
quote:
It's entirely capricious.
Not entirely. I would suggest that the President isn't doing anything the insurance companies would disagree with.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:23 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:By capricious whim, yes I would have a problem with that. I don't want Obamacare enforced. But this isn't about agreeing with the law. It's about the how the government conducts its business.
Uh, certain parts of it, yeah. You wouldn't?
quote:Aye, but they will still have to comply as if they still had the staff.
Employers will still be able to reduce their staff.
quote:I guess it's arbitrary enforce my is OK as long as you don't do it to too many people...
The vast majority of businesses will be unaffected by this.
quote:If the president didn't like the way it was passed he should have veto'ed it. It's f*cking named after him in the common vernacular, but somehow, it's not his bill? Amazing.
I'm not surprised at all at how the President is manipulating this law based on the method under which it was 'passed'.
quote:Huh? That doesn't make it any less capricious.
Not entirely. I would suggest that the President isn't doing anything the insurance companies would disagree with
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
1. We are mad about the perjury charges.
You don't want to perjure yourself? Don't swear an oath. It's that simple.
quote:
2. We are mad about the lack of authority for the IRS to do this.
To do what, delay a bad law? Didn't the USSC find that the ACA was effectively a tax?
quote:
3. We are mad about Barack Obama...
The real answer right there, "Because Obama, that's why.
If you are looking for cognitive dissidence, look elsewhere than my posts. If you think that I would not have lambasted Bush for similar action, you are wrong, although, in my defense, I was in middle school at the time.
I have a big problem with overbearing government, right or left. It does not matter who does it, whoever abuses their constitutional power is an enemy in my eyes and should be removed from office at the ballot box or impeached if necessary.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:32 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm not surprised at all at how the President is manipulating this law based on the method under which it was 'passed'. All this outrage seems a bit contrived, imo.
I don't think the outrage is contrived. I guess it's because some of us conservatives still can't believe how much bullshite this administration gets away with without A) the media calling him out on it nor b) without anyone in government making a big deal about it.
It's probably because some of us still like to think, that we can still get back to the standards we once held the office. But as much control as the left and the media has granted the president without challenging the admin on anything, it gets harder to ever see our country going back to prosperity and freedom.
Without a doubt, this administration is the greatest threat to peace, prosperity, and freedom in this country, more-so than any outside force. The liberal enablers, and spineless GOP only encourage the power grab, and the "watch dogs" in the media, are nothing more than complicit "fixers" that aim to mitigate and dispose of any scandals before the American public can find out. In the end, it's the government vs. the citizens. They do not represent the people in DC. They represent only themselves, and their grab for more power over we, the citizens. The sad thing is that there is a substantial block of citizens on the left that fight for the government to obtain that power over it's citizens, all in the name of "winning the argument". At the end of the day independent, hard working, freedom loving people are being crushed by this administration and it's enablers. All that will be left are beggars, losers, and slackers. Then who will you tax? Then who will you punish for success? Then who will you condemn?
This post was edited on 2/11/14 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 2/11/14 at 3:46 pm to BugAC
quote:
I don't think the outrage is contrived.
It sure seemed so on the first page when no one really seemed to understand what to be outraged over.
quote:
It's probably because some of us still like to think, that we can still get back to the standards we once held the office.
That lacks sense on multiple levels.
What past administration would you like to go back to, Jackson?
quote:
Without a doubt, this administration is the greatest threat to peace, prosperity, and freedom in this country, more-so than any outside force.
This is the crap that just rings of hyperbole, and ultimately insincerity. You cannot think for one moment that this is any worse than FDR's administration in terms of big government threatening our peace and prosperity - or LBJ's, for that matter.
Is the ACA really that much worse than Wilson signing the Federal Reserve Act?
Are Obama's extra-legal excursions really that much worse than Nixon forcing wage and price controls on the market? Where did Nixon get the authority to do THAT?
quote:
In the end, it's the government vs. the citizens. They do not represent the people in DC. They represent only themselves
You're wrong. There's a group of 'persons' that the government serves quite well. You can find them writing laws such as the ACA itself. Can you guess who these 'persons' who control the government are?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Is the ACA really that much worse than Wilson signing the Federal Reserve Act?
Let's look at that. Was the Federal Reserve Act ever repealed? No. Has considerable damage been done because of the lack of oversight over the fed? Yes. So again, i state with assurance, that Obamacare is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity this country has faced. The act, by itself, is considerably harmful to ALL BUSINESSES in the united states. Let's compound that, by adding on every shitty federal program on the books that we are currently forced to pay for. So yes, Obamacare is crippling the country.
quote:
Are Obama's extra-legal excursions really that much worse than Nixon forcing wage and price controls on the market? Where did Nixon get the authority to do THAT?
I'm not familiar with the subject because I was not born around that time. I'll have to do some research.
quote:
You're wrong. There's a group of 'persons' that the government serves quite well. You can find them writing laws such as the ACA itself. Can you guess who these 'persons' who control the government are?
Whom might you be inferring?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:08 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
It sure seemed so on the first page when no one really seemed to understand what to be outraged over.
What people are outraged over is an Executive branch that is randomly changing implementation dates on a law. That is the sole province of the Legislative branch.
That there is an inclusion of language stating that a business must declare that they aren't basing their employment levels on legislation that could penalize them based on their employment levels, is just incredulity icing on the outrage cake.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:11 pm to BugAC
quote:
Whom might you be inferring?
They are 'persons' whose sole responsibility is to create wealth - that is, they will do whatever is legally necessary to generate wealth. This includes petitioning the government, as per their protected right under the 1st Amendment, to change the laws to their favor. Included in this right to petition is the transfer of wealth to government officials.
When the transfer of wealth to government officials = 'speech', those 'persons' whose sole responsibility being to create wealth will have infinitely more speech than persons who have other responsibilities and who do not directly create wealth.
When money = speech, more money = more speech, no money = no speech.
quote:
Was the Federal Reserve Act ever repealed? No
Of course not, whom does it serve?
So, who controls the government again...?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:15 pm to BugAC
quote:
Let's look at that. Was the Federal Reserve Act ever repealed? No. Has considerable damage been done because of the lack of oversight over the fed? Yes. So again, i state with assurance, that Obamacare is the greatest threat to peace and prosperity this country has faced. The act, by itself, is considerably harmful to ALL BUSINESSES in the united states. Let's compound that, by adding on every shitty federal program on the books that we are currently forced to pay for. So yes, Obamacare is crippling the country.
I will go you one better. It is the rare piece of legislation that gets passed that doesn't get expanded upon. A great example is income tax. Originally it was stated that it would never go over ~7% but look at where we are now.
Or let's look at the EPA. It was first created to make businesses clean up after themselves but now reaches so far that even if the population voted for it overwhelmingly the traffic circle in Alexandria wouldn't be changed because the land inside it has been declared a wetland.
Every inch of government seeks to grow itself. The ACA is going to be no different.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:18 pm to Bard
quote:
What people are outraged over is an Executive branch that is randomly changing implementation dates on a law.
Yeah, except for the first page of this thread. Hell, look at the OP:
quote:
quote:quote:
Some lawmakers, though, have claimed that the mere threat of the employer mandate is causing companies to shed full-time workers in the hope of keeping their staff size below 50 and avoiding the requirement.
Administration officials dispute that this is happening on any large scale. Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.
Officials stressed that the latest reprieve applies to a relatively small percentage of employers -- albeit companies that employ millions of workers.
LINK
The clown car rolls on.
I assume the emboldened text is the OP's edit. There doesn't seem to be any outrage there for the capriciousness of the President's actions, it seems to all be bound up in the perjury statement.
quote:
there is an inclusion of language stating that a business must declare that they aren't basing their employment levels on legislation that could penalize them based on their employment levels
I'm not altogether sure what that sentence is saying, but I'll go ahead and say that isn't altogether true. A business doesn't have to take an oath in the first place. No oath, no perjury.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:23 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A business doesn't have to take an oath in the first place. No oath, no perjury.
quote:
Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate.
are you saying that there will be no legal force behind the direction for the businesses to "certify" their employment levels?
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:27 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
A business doesn't have to take an oath in the first place. No oath, no perjury.
Or else they don't get the exemption til 2015 (which refers back to the outrage over selective enforcement in ways that cross into the Legislative's territory).
You see, this all ties back to the Obama administration changing the implementation of the law as it was written.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I assume the emboldened text is the OP's edit. There doesn't seem to be any outrage there for the capriciousness of the President's actions, it seems to all be bound up in the perjury statement.
I can't speak for anyone else but I find both equally bull shite.
The "certifying" is the most current bull shite while the Obamacare law/just batch of suggestions Obama can implement when he feels like being the ongoing issue.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but this may be the first time i can remember the government making adapting to a law illegal
I can see the head of finance of any company that lays people off: "we didn't lay off due to the Obamacare costs, we had layoffs due to the supply costs".
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:35 pm to Politiceaux
It is their way to silence people! Period!
This should scare everyone! But it won't!
This should scare everyone! But it won't!
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:39 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
are you saying that there will be no legal force behind the direction for the businesses to "certify" their employment levels?
That's right.
If you trim your staff to less than 100, and you implement the ACA by January 2015, you do not have to swear any oath. No oath, no perjury.
You don't HAVE to delay implementation if you are under 100 employees. Indeed, up until this week, business owners were operating under the assumption that there was NO extension. They can just go on about their business as they were before.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 4:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
That's right.
well I hope you're right, and that treasury's bluff gets called.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:06 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
are you saying that there will be no legal force behind the direction for the businesses to "certify" their employment levels?
That's right.
If you trim your staff to less than 100, and you implement the ACA by January 2015, you do not have to swear any oath. No oath, no perjury.
You don't HAVE to delay implementation if you are under 100 employees. Indeed, up until this week, business owners were operating under the assumption that there was NO extension. They can just go on about their business as they were before.
However, falsifying information on your taxes IS a crime. If you have to sign a statement certifying that you did not layoff people because of the mandate when you did and it can be proven in court (or not proved, but it would cost too much to fight it), that business is liable. This is a huge overreach. It allows the government (or a spurned employee) to bring serious charges against any business of that size at any time. Even if the charges don't stick, the allegations will be too expensive for many companies to fight off.
Posted on 2/11/14 at 5:08 pm to Politiceaux
quote:Fiduciary responsibility abutting a feckless law with corrupt enforcement. It's going to get interesting.
Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News