Staples shot back on Wednesday, saying the company’s policy on part-time workers was more than a decade old and not a response to the 2010 health care law, known as Obamacare.
“Unfortunately, the president appears not to have all the facts,” Staples spokesman Kirk Saville said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate that the president is attacking a company that provides more than 85,000 jobs and is a major tax payer.”
Obama does not appear to have all the facts. Quite an understatement. Guess they didn’t cover this on ESPN.
OK, now I am tired of folks insulting my intelligence by offering conclusions which are nothing but assertions, or as I like to say, what they WISH was the truth. So here it is: how is the ACA the WORST LAW ever passed by Congress? What is so terrible? Republicans say this is also a jobs killer but they never offer any real proof, only debatable points. Assertions are not facts and I am tired of being offered such as “proof”. So prove to me that this law is the worst…I assume you can compare it to other bad laws? Like not requiring gun owners to inform the authorities when their gun is lost or stolen? Or giving the gun lobby standing in any municipality so they can sue and extort the fees from the loser. Are those the kinds of bad laws we are talking about?
Stush, Medical Cost have increased since passing it. I have many clients that lost hours and had to take a 2nd or 3rd part time job. There is no true out of pocket limit on OOP cost as Co Pays to specialist always apply. Enrollment period is same time as Medicare and Medicaid. Everyone in the country trying to shop health insurance right before the holidays. Web Site at a Billion Dollars. People lost their coverage. People had to change their doctors.
Good try FFA. Stush must have been living on some island in the South Pacific for the past 5 years since we have been debating it on numerous articles. If he doesn’t get it by now, he never will. How about the lies Obama has been guilty of trying to sell it and Gruber backing that up with his lies to the folks? I think that sailed right over his head just like it did with Libby and others.
February 12, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, Agent, big business LOVES the ACA. Did you see that other article on IJ? Their greed knows no bounds.
February 12, 2015 at 4:05 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t know why 13 likes on my post above. It just sucks losing business because people have their hours cut so the bill they cut is insurance.
No one has countered my post as it can not be denied. This is real life main st USA feet on the ground info. No GOVT BS stats. Real life. Real people.
Big Business may love it. Real People that it has hurt hate it.
February 12, 2015 at 4:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA – some people are delighting in the fact that people are hurting because it fits their agenda that the ACA is bad. I am not one of them and did not up-thumb your comment.
February 13, 2015 at 10:14 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA – I think some “like” your comment to say they “agree” with your post. Not that they like what is going on.
February 12, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“OK, now I am tired of folks insulting my intelligence by offering conclusions which are nothing but assertions”
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. There are many on this site who feel if you don’t agree with them, you’re an idiot. There are still folks here who, even when you do agree with them, they’ll still call you an idiot anyway.
thanks Rosenblatt for that confirmation. No matter how many times I’ve asked for “specifics”, I get more generalizations, and FFA is no different. My golfing pals like to say that people never let the facts get in the way of what they believe; you can’t change their minds no matter what the facts are. The facts are that more people are insured than ever before. And using a few outliers as proof of the majority experienece doesn’t work for me either; using a single tragic case and making a conclusion is also a non-sequitur. To “all” of those folks that FFA says lost thier coverage and are suffering from the ACA I say this: now you know how those of us on the bottom felt BEFORE the ACA. I may not have the best coverage but I am finally covered. If they want an expansion of the coverage, they should go to their congressmen and have that legislated. And finally I say this, Rosenblatt, I stayed off of this discussion for a few years, before the ACA we discussed other insurance issues and it alwasy spiralled into the old LEFT VS RIGHT chaos and I was attacked personally…so this is my last post on anything for a while. I know this much, I have no idea what any of your lives are like but I haven’t attacked you but instead tried to just get involved in a debate. but without any moderator, and allowing anyone to comment without attribution (both the good and bad about the internet) has always resulted in someone shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater…that is, we always find those who push past the bounds of free speech, and especially here, past the bounds of civility and decency. Nuff said.
February 17, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
…and you didn’t even talk about how someone (most know who) keeps influencing which posts get promoted and which are hidden – not based on the merits of the post, but solely if that post is in-line with what that person believes.
I have tried every communication technique I know, and still have run into the issues you mentioned many many times.
I really wish we could move this forum away from the childish name calling and insults and towards an actual discussion (let alone debate – we’re far away from that. First things first, let’s try to talk to each other civilly without jumping down each other’s throats every chance we get.)
Yes, that was a generalization of this forum’s posters and does not apply to everyone the same amount, but I’m sure people will chime in and tell me what I wrote is not what I really believe.
February 18, 2015 at 12:15 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stush – don’t let any of us deter you from speaking your mind. I find for the most part people are respectful on here when you are in turn. There are just a few of us that sling the dirt. I am one of them, but only at Agent and a very few choice others.
February 20, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stush, you should really try to study harder and open your eyes and watch the news occasionally and you might learn something. I would caution against watching any of the major networks, especially NBC since their track record has not been good for the past 12 years under Brian Williams. Truth is not in their vocabulary.
February 11, 2015 at 1:20 pm
Sam Sneed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Even if Obama had all his facts correct (which would be, if not a first, close to a first), who the heck is Obama to be deciding just how much profit Staples should make in a given year? If, conversly, Staples does poorly in a given year, will Obama suggest sending it money?
If Obamacare imposes extra costs on Staples, who is Obama to suggest that Staples should not use standard business acumen to determine an appropriate pricing policy and an appropriate staffing policy?
Aren’t the chickens coming home to roost now? When this law was passed in 2010, I believe the predictions were that businesses would cut hours, cut employees because of the massive expense they would have. Looks like it is living up to the predictions of the biggest job killer in history.
I understand…but your point is meaningless because a few people here will misconstrue what you said, read a deeper meaning into your post than what you actually wrote, and then insult you (1) for having your own opinion and (2) for something you never said nor implied.
My sweeping generalizations over now – suffice it to say: I feel ya, Stush – I feel ya.
Other – I’m not sure which “camp” you’re in on this topic, because the news article, in my opinion, shows that Staples is doing what any responsible business is supposed to do. Tighten the belt (reduce expenses) if you want to maintain or increase profit.
The employees admitted that they would regularly finagle their hours above what was scheduled to earn more income. In my opinion, they are stealing from the company. They should be reprimanded.
Another question that is not answered in the article. Did these previous part time workers have health care provided before the mandatory Obamacare law? If not, they are no worse off than they were before (for healthcare reasons) and it proves that Obama and company were shortsighted when they rammed this down our throat. Because it cost the employees hours and income instead of providing them with healthcare.
Finally, the article also shows how the retail stores are not performing as well as the online sales. So their so-called excessive profits are not being generated by the employees in the stores. Staples might do better by just shutting all the stores down and become an online only operation.
How is it stealing if they put in the hours they clocked? Staples didn’t reprimand them, it paid them. Staples is only laying down the law now (pun intended) because the employer mandate is going into effect.
“The employees admitted that they would regularly finagle their hours ****above what was scheduled*** to earn more income.” (emphasis added)
I don’t want to put words in people’s mouths, but I think his ‘stealing’ comment was because the employees were documenting they worked more hours than they really did.
No – if an employee is only suppose to work their scheduled hours, and they work more than that anyway because they know they will be paid for it anyway, they are stealing from the company. Yes, they might have actually “worked” those hours, but if they were not needed to be there, it was a waste of the companies money.
February 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks for clarifying IM. I was wrong about what you were trying to say and that’s exactly why I wrote that I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth!
February 12, 2015 at 4:11 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No problem. Thanks for your note.
February 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Staples is required to pay them, by law, if they worked the hours. They are stealing by working more hours than they are authorized to do so.
The same applies to overtime. For example, if a person is only supposed to work 40 hours per week, but they work 50 hours instead even though they were not authorized by the wmployer to do so, the employer is required to pay them time and a half.
The employer not only pays the employee, but they also have to pay the employment taxes, too.
Staples is not laying down the law, they are reigning in their costs, with or without Obamacare. Maybe they were too nice before and didn’t say anything because they felt bad for the employers. Whatever the reason, the added cost (payroll) was not budgeted for those extra hours.
No, they didn’t do it because they were “nice.” They did it because they obviously had a need for those employees to be there. Otherwise there would have been progressive discipline and they would have been terminated. They are “reigning in costs” now ONLY because the employer mandate is kicking in. That’s the only reason. And that makes them “skirting” the law. It’s legal, but certainly not moral.
February 12, 2015 at 4:13 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow, Libby, I didn’t realize that you sat on the Staples board and was part of their HR department and also sat on their finance committee.
You sure are busy!
February 12, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry, Integrity, it doesn’t take a genius to know how all these big corporations operate. I’ve worked for enough of them. Just because you’re off it your never-never land where corporations are “nice” and Obama is an evil Muslim, doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t right here living in reality.
February 12, 2015 at 4:35 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – fact check – I know about the big bad corporations. I’ve been laid off twice by them just so they can get their stock price up. It pissed me off.
That said, it is still their right to do so. I’m not going to play the victim because the world does not owe me anything and I am okay with that.
I work for what I get.
February 12, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Good for you, Integrity. I’ve already said they were within their legal rights to do so, so I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to continue to bring that up. I’m not debating that. I’m saying it’s not the RIGHT thing to do.
February 12, 2015 at 5:26 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – I keep bringing it up because it is their choice. It is your opinion about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG.
I think it is WRONG to kill babies during pregnancy. You think it is the mothers CHOICE, to do so.
I think killing babies is worse than not providing healthcare. Especially if the healthcare REQUIRES an employer to pay for the killing of the babies.
But you are okay with this and that is your opinion. I’ll pray that you and others will somehow be enlightened that killing babies is more WRONG than not providing healthcare.
February 13, 2015 at 8:40 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I DO NOT think it is OK to kill babies. I think it is OK to decide not to take a pregnancy to term and abort a fetus. Big difference. But it’s science, so I don’t expect you to understand.
You want to bring all these unwanted children into the world and then not provide the basic necessities for them like healthcare. I’m not surprised you don’t see the hypocrisy in your position.
February 13, 2015 at 10:34 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – It’s not science, it’s an excuse. A fetus is a baby. Society uses the term fetus to desensitize the issue to mitigate the guilt.
If it was just a fetus and not a baby, why do people who kill a pregnant mother get charged with 2 counts of murder? I guess its a baby then because it was not the mothers choice. Tell me about hypocrisy.
I would be more than happy to provide healthcare for the unwanted babies. That is a no brainer.
You’re so against the big bad corporations, how about the hypocrisy of the abortion industry. Billion dollar industry for abortion on demand. How about the govt promote abstinence instead of handing out condoms? Instead they make it easy to have sex and an abortion.
That is like giving an alcoholic a case of beer and saying “if you have to drink, use this instead of whiskey”. Maybe if society wasn’t so accepting of abortion, there would be less unwanted babies?
February 13, 2015 at 10:45 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I will never see it your way and you will never see it mine.
February 13, 2015 at 11:41 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re right Libby. It is sad that you and many others think a pregnancy is simply a science project that can be ended.
February 13, 2015 at 11:54 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s sad that you can’t accept that it’s each woman’s choice to make based on their particular circumstances and feel you have a need to judge others.
February 13, 2015 at 11:58 am
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m just going to butt in here. This is just my observation, I have not studied the topic in depth. I have only seen employees work more than their scheduled shift when the store needs them because someone didn’t come to work or the demand for employees was not budgeted correctly.
I do not think these employees are “stealing” anything. For most employers, it is cheaper to give part time employees more hours than to hire additional part time employees. Now that the employer mandate has gone into effect, that is no longer the case and those stores that have cyclical demand or employees who skip their shifts will make different staffing decisions.
February 13, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well said, KY.
February 13, 2015 at 12:34 pm
Get your facts straight says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Scientifically speaking, when does the child get a choice?
February 13, 2015 at 1:34 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – you make the judgment that it is morally wrong for businesses to not provide healthcare, which is their choice.
I simply made the comparison that I think it is more morally wrong to choose to kill a baby than it is choose to not provide healthcare.
Both decisions are based on the individuals (or corporations) circumstances, merely justified by what they deem to be right or wrong in their own eyes. These decisions can be selfishly based or not.
The point is they both have the right to choose what is best for them. My opinion is that one is worse than the other. It seems you have a different opinion on which one is worse.
February 13, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Libby – you make the judgment that it is morally wrong for businesses to not provide healthcare, which is their choice.”
No, I didn’t. I made the judgment that it was wrong for STAPLES to cut hours only for the purpose of avoiding paying health insurance benefits. They were happy to have those employees working those hours and didn’t mind the extra payroll, payroll tax, or unemployment taxes they paid (and still made $610M profit). They only cut back hours when they were faced with offering health insurance benefits to those same workers.
I never said all employers have a moral obligation to provide health insurance. You made that assumption.
February 13, 2015 at 2:59 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – Allowing additional hours when unauthorized and cutting hours is drastically different.
Staples did not “cut” hours. Those hours were not authorized (officially scheduled). In the article, “Alice” was not scheduled to work 40 hours, she was scheduled for 25.
Even if she was asked to work (authorized) the additional hours, Staples still has the perogative to discontinue that, regardless of the reason. The law changed and is going to cost the company more money under certain conditions.
Every responsible business will analyze those conditions and make decisions that are best for the company and stockholders.
There is nothing moral or immoral about it.
Their decision could have been to accept the changes and anticipate the additional expense, which might have prompted widespread layoffs.
They would have then been blamed for laying off people due to Obamacare.
February 13, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – I guess you missed this post:
“Libby says: I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA.
See? I can admit when I’m wrong.”
Funny how those kinds of posts are always the ones that get missed/ignored.
February 13, 2015 at 4:58 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, I saw that in the other post and thanked you for it. I guess you missed that.
February 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
Actually, responsible businesses are suppose to increase revenue in order to maintain or increase profit. If all you do is reduce expenses, you will not have a business very long.
If the employees were actually working, they weren’t stealing. You righties always say that if you want to make more money, you should work harder. It sounds like that is what those employees were doing.
I would have more sympathy for Staples if they didn’t average over $600 million in PROFIT the past 5 years.
Ron, responsible businesses are supposed to do a variety of things to increase profits, including manage and reduce expenses.
Quick question for you, if a salaried employee spends half the day on the internet, are they stealing from their employer? Same principle, but in reverse.
If a Staples store manager determines that they only need 3 people to work a shift, and a 4th employee decides to hang out and “help out”, how is that not taking money that is not theirs to take?
Definition of steal is: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.
It’s kind of like a “little white lie”. Not a big deal to most people, but it is still a LIE. This is still stealing.
It’s not stealing or Staples would have fired them. End of story. They paid them and their payroll and unemployment taxes and still made $600M profit. Offering them a health insurance plan in which they would have to pay a portion of the premium would not in any way break them. Yes, their CEO may have to take a few million less in his paycheck. Boo hoo. Sorry, not sorry.
February 12, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
It is only stealing if the salaried employee is not performing the tasks for which he/she was hired. If the employer does not feel he/she is getting their money’s worth or the most out of the employee, that is on them.
February 12, 2015 at 4:18 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So if an employee does the same thing at another company, is it stealing or not?? Are you basically saying that since they didn’t get caught, it is okay.
That is the problem with the left today…the world owes me everything and if I take it and get caught, it’s not my fault.
How do you define stealing, Libby?
February 12, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stealing = taking something that doesn’t belong to you. That was easy. Got another?
It’s not stealing if you are being paid a salary to do a job. In fact, that’s the definition of a salaried individual. If you’re referring to me, my employer and I have an agreement. I’m here in case I’m needed and I perform all the job functions expected of me. If I have down time, I am still expected to be here if I am needed. If I can not find busy work, I am free to be on the internet. Now. I know you really want to call me a thief, but I’m afraid it’s just not true. In fact, I’d rather be busy with real work as it makes the day go by faster. That’s why I have assisted every single person in my department, even filling in for each of them when they are sick or on vacation. Do you do that???
February 12, 2015 at 4:31 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I/M says “So if an employee does the same thing at another company, is it stealing or not?? Are you basically saying that since they didn’t get caught, it is okay”
Now your getting the jist of Illinois Politics… It only took 6 years for you to understand that.
February 12, 2015 at 4:45 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – you said – Stealing = taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
So the employee “taking money” for hours they were not authorized to work is not stealing? How do you figure that?
Regarding your work question, I am salaried and the expected work week is 37.5 hours. I work 45-50 hours every week. Yes, I do that and then some.
February 12, 2015 at 4:49 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA – No – I knew Ill. Politics and most politicians operate and think that way.
I was just trying to get Libby to admit how ridiculous her statement was. A futile attempt, I know, but, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Maybe Libby is the “nut” trying to find the blind squirrel?
February 12, 2015 at 4:56 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – being paid for hours you worked is not stealing, I don’t care how much you want to spin it. If Staples didn’t want them working those hours, the managers should have enforced the policy in 2014. THEY DID NOT.
You can not fault the employee for working extra hours with no argument from their employer. They are working for what they got. They’re not stealing it. Get your head out of your rear-end. You may not be a squirrel, but you sure are blind.
February 12, 2015 at 5:04 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – Just because they were not reprimanded for it in 2014 doesn’t make it right. Nor does it set a precedent that Staples has to continue looking the other way.
It’s called integrity, on the employees part, and it matters! You are the one who is blind to what really transpired. Now that they are crqacking down on the abuse of working more hours, it it Staples fault??? Get real.
February 13, 2015 at 8:43 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That you think these employees were somehow “pulling one over” on Staples is ludicrous. The managers had to have known they were putting in the hours and they approved it or it would not have continued. You people on the right slay me. You condemn people for not working and turn around and condemn them for working too much! Are you ever satisfied with anything???
February 13, 2015 at 10:43 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That’s not the point, Libby. The point is that Staples is cracking down now and enforcing the policy, regardless of the reason.
You, Obama and the “poor” workers purposely abusing the policy are trying to blame it on them because of the Obamacare loophole.
I am not condemning anyone for working. I am calling them out when they complain about someone holding them accountable when they break the rules.
Drug dealers work hard, too. I guess I should be happy that they are working and not care that they are breaking the law.
Your (liberals) “ends justifies the means” mentality is one of the things that is wrong with society today. There is no real integrity in your thinking.
February 13, 2015 at 11:05 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“That’s not the point, Libby. The point is that Staples is cracking down now and enforcing the policy, regardless of the reason.” No. That’s not the point. You said the employees were stealing. That’s the point I was refuting.
“You, Obama and the “poor” workers purposely abusing the policy are trying to blame it on them because of the Obamacare loophole.” Huh? How are Obama and I abusing the policy and just what Obama loophole are you referring to? That sentence doesn’t even make any sense.
“I am not condemning anyone for working. I am calling them out when they complain about someone holding them accountable when they break the rules.” Nobody is complaining because they are being held accountable for breaking the rules. I’m complaining because the “rule” was not enforced until it meant additional dollars out of Staples pocket. They were perfectly happy with the hours their employees were working before. They just don’t want to have to give them health insurance. And I say “shame on them” for that. (Oh yes I did!)
“Drug dealers work hard, too. I guess I should be happy that they are working and not care that they are breaking the law.” That’s just a stupid statement. Enough said.
“Your (liberals) “ends justifies the means” mentality is one of the things that is wrong with society today. There is no real integrity in your thinking.” Just where do you get that idea? Nothing I said was in justification of any means to get to an end. If you need me to explain my position AGAIN, please let me know. Otherwise, you’re way far off the mark with that comment.
February 13, 2015 at 11:12 am
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity, you are absolutely right, it is a form of stealing. Our department has a budget. The department manager has to keep department expenses within that budget. If she doesn’t do that, she gets in trouble with HER higher-ups. Overtime comes out of the budget. That’s why SHE has to be the one to AUTHORIZE the overtime. If all the employees under her just decided to work numerous hours of OT without her permission, and she then HAS to pay us for it, that throws the budget out of whack. And gets HER in trouble for not properly managing the working hours of her people. We’re good employees for putting in the hours and being willing to do so, but we’re NOT good employees for doing it WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. THAT is where the “stealing” comes in. She doesn’t want to fire us because we’re otherwise good employees, but she can’t just let us call the shots, either; that’s HER job. So maybe she doesn’t fire us, but reprimands us for doing something without her permission. You and I understand this, but I don’t see why others can’t understand it.
February 13, 2015 at 11:56 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Because, Connie, they weren’t “reprimanded.” If their managers had an issue with it (for budgetary or other reasons) it was their responsibility to address it and stop it. They did neither. Therefore, they gave implicit consent for the employees to work those hours. There was no stealing going on. Get over yourselves you judgemental Dudley Do-Rights.
February 13, 2015 at 12:10 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Has anyone here ever worked retail?
The retail employees I know get sent home if they are not needed. The shift supervisor or manager tells them to leave. They have to clock out – there is no “hanging around to help out” if they were not specifically asked to stay later.
This is also true in hospitals and other service industries. If additional staff is needed (the supervisor or manager makes this decision) THEN employees are asked to work additional over shift or employees are called in to cover the need.
I cannot imagine anyone attempting to stay on the clock for more hours can sneak that past their supervisor or manager. Retail is a delicate balance. I have yet to meet a shift supervisor/manager who doesn’t know exactly how many people are working at any given moment.
February 13, 2015 at 12:12 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you, Connie.
Libby –
Point# 1 – Obama, you and the workers are blaming the action taken by Staples (cracking down on part timers working more than the authorized hours) and alleging they are doing it to not have to provide healthcare coverage.
Point# 2 – These part time workers never had healthcare to begin with and if they followed the rules by only working their 25 hours, they still would not be eligible. Therefore, Staples is not taking anything away from them and they are not breaking the law and they are not trying to avoid the law. Do you get it, yet??
Point# 3 – The workers ARE stealing from them by taking money for hours they worked but were unauthorized for. Staples reasons for not cracking down harder last year have nothing to do with their decisions this year. You are trying to justify the theft by them merely trying to support their families.
Point# 4 – Regarding the drug dealers comment – trying to support one’s family is no justification for breaking the rules or the law.
Point# 5 – You’re refuting that they were not stealing. By your own definition, they took something that was not theirs to take. How is that not stealing?
February 13, 2015 at 12:46 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity:
Point #1 – Staples is “cracking down” on hours now MOST CERTAINLY to avoid having to pay health insurance benefits. Which they are entitled to do by law, but if integrity really matters, they are morally wrong to do so.
Point #2 – Staples is taking away the extra hours they were previously happy to pay these workers AND not giving them healthcare benefits.
Point #3 – Not stealing. See KY’s comment. There is no way management did not know and approve of these employees working extra hours.
Point #4 – The drug dealer comment was completely stupid. How can you even try to compare the two?
Point #5 – The were not taking anything that wasn’t explicitly or implicitly given to them.
You need to wipe the indignation off of your face and admit if integrity REALLY matters, Staples is morally wrong for cutting hours only in an attempt to avoid paying benefits.
February 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
KYjw – Yes, I have worked retail and my wife was a retail manager for many years. Your statements are very true and any shift supervisor or manager worth their weight SHOULD know who is suppose to be on or not.
That said, depending upon the store chain, “clocking” in and out may be local where the manager sees and approves the timecards or it can be centralized. The local manager may still be responsible for approving. Even if they are, they are not there 100% of the time and must rely on the shift supervisor to “police” the employees to leave on time.
Have you been in these stores lately? They are operating with skeleton crews many of the times and the supervisors are too busy to police anyone.
Additionally, I also know that employees will work together to “clock in or out” for each other just so they can get extra time. I’ve witnessed it.
Libby – you are a hypocrit. You are accusing Staples of being morally wrong for doing what is best for them. Maybe if you considered that they were scientifically terminating a situation that does not work for them any more, you would be accepting of their personal choice and decision.
February 13, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Since you, as a man, are incapable of being faced with an unwanted pregnancy I think it’s hypocritical for you to even comment on the topic of abortion. I’m not here advocating for or against it. I’m advocating for a woman’s right to choose what is right for her and her body, life, soul. It is not yours. And certainly not ANY mans.
I think Staples cutting hours to avoid the law is reprehensible. You want to get all cute about equating that to abortion, which is disingenuous and dishonest. The two should not even be mentioned together in the same post.
February 13, 2015 at 3:19 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I understand that it is a womans body. But there was a man that participated in creating that child. The child is partly his, but he has no say in the matter. That’s the law and we have to live with it.
I think it is reprehensible that you can put an “immoral” label on something like healthcare and be condemning when there are more serious issues that are morally questionable and that you actually support.
February 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Connie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is entirely possible for an employee to work OT and the supervisor doesn’t know it’s happening until after the fact. Where I work, the employees work out of two different buildings, a mile apart. Our supervisor, crazy as this sounds, is in one building, and our department is in the other building. And we don’t have timecards. We’re on the honor system. So we could very easily work multiple hours OT and she wouldn’t know it until we put in for it AFTER the fact. She’s not sitting here where she can see someone coming in early and say, “What are you doing here? You’re not supposed to be here for another hour yet.” The reverse also happens – people come in 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes late, and nobody knows they’re tardy because we have no time cards and the supervisor isn’t there to see who’s coming in when. This isn’t because they got stuck in traffic, or had an emergency; it’s routine with them because with no timecards and the supervisor not being on-site, they know they won’t get caught. So those people are stealing time. So yes, there are situations where these things can happen.
February 13, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Whatever, Integrity. I guess you are not willing to agree to disagree on the matter. That’s your perogative. But better be sure to check your own house thoroughly before throwing stones at mine. I’m comfortable with my morals and choices, so you can stop all your pontificating now.
February 13, 2015 at 4:01 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s no worse than when the rich crooks take turns giving each other 200% raises that they in no way earned and were not authorized by the owners of the company (the stockholders). That is stealing. That’s how the rich get their money, by stealing from the rest of us.
February 13, 2015 at 4:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Who approves their timesheets? If unauthorized overtime is an issue for your company then your supervisor should be fired. And if tardiness is an issue for your company then your supervisor should be fired. Otherwise, they are complicit in the overtime &/or tardiness and have no reason to balk. Why don’t you spend more time worrying about your own time instead of everyone elses?
February 11, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Sam Sneed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Further, apparently Obamacare provides: “Reuters has reported that some businesses are keeping staffing numbers below 50 or cutting the work week to less than 30 hours to avoid providing employee health insurance.”
Why doesn’t Obama just come out with a presidential edict that Obamacare shall apply to all employees, not just ones working 30 hours or more, or for employers with 50 or more employees? Unconstitutional you say? Just Google to see how many times in the last few years Obama has made “pronouncements” completely contradicting express provisions of the ACA.
How is this different? Obama knows he cannot be impeached, which is the sole remedy for a lawbreaking president. So why not?
How is it that the president can’t be impeached? I didn’t know that. I thought that was the remedy for high crimes and misdeameanors….being impeached is the process not the result, and it is available to congress any time they want to do it.
I guess having never run a business, Obama doesn’t realize that these regulations increase cost of operating as do ALL regulations. These idiots “good ideas” are almost never a good idea but that won’t stop them from running their mouths and passing more ignorant and destructive laws at the direction of their donors.
According to Staples last annual statement, they have 46,361 full time employees. If they were to offer full time employment to the other 38,639 part time employees, most of the income they earned over the last year would go poof. Even offering healthcare to a fraction of these part time workers would material affect earnings. I’m sympathetic to the workers, but companies like Staples are surviving on the margin.
Are you trying to make us believe that providing health insurance for 38,639 part-time workers would cost $620 million dollars? That would be $16k PER EMPLOYEE. You need to go back to the calculator and figure that one out again, pal.
Hey Libby, I think you are the one that needs to go back not only to the calculator but also take some business courses. $16,000 per year PER EMPLOYEE is not that uncommon for companies to pay. After you sum up the costs for health insurance, vision, dental, life, disability, 401k, etc. Plus all the additional taxes and administrative expenses. Yes, the $620 million would go poof.
Libby only mentioned health insurance costs. If you need to add vision, dental, life, disability, 401k, etc. to get to $16,000 you are being disingenuous.
Ron – The reality is that those costs, especially the social security and unemployment taxes that the employer is responsible for would go up too.
If you don’t consider those, you would be foolish from a business perspective.
By the way, my employer pays closer to $20K for benefits, per person.
February 12, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, they were happy to pay it before the mandate went into effect. That’s why they let people work 40 hours and gladly paid them for it. And still made $610M profit. Your arguments don’t hold water.
February 12, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
My point was that Libby only referenced health insurance and Carlos added the costs of other benefits. Do you disagree?
February 12, 2015 at 3:30 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron – I don’t disagree with your point. But, you cannot forget there are other costs involved, too. Do you agree with my point?
Libby – You cannot say they were happy to pay it before, nor can I say they were unhappy to pay it, because neither of us work for them. Maybe, it tool the impact of Obamacare for them to see why there was leakage in their payroll budget?
Whatever the reason, they have the right to run their business the way they want to, as long as it is within the parameters of the law.
February 12, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, they are within the parameters of the law. Within moral parameters? I think not. My original statement stands. They paid it before. “Offering” a health plan in which the employees contribute to the premium would not break them. If the employee chooses not to participate in the health insurance plan offered, that is their right to choose. Giving them no choice is wrong, morally. My opinion. I’m entitled to it.
February 12, 2015 at 4:21 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
I agree with your point regarding the additional costs to the employer.
The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.
February 12, 2015 at 4:25 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – they were part time before Obamacare and didn’t have coverage. Staples didn’t take anything away. They are just making sure they are staying within the law.
So now you are trying to say that Staples should automatically give them all at least 30 hours so they can have healthcare? You are ridiculous.
You are right. Opinions are like A**holes. Everyone has one and some are bigger and smell more than others. Thanks (not) for sharing yours.
February 12, 2015 at 4:31 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.”
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
Although you left out getting insulted too :D
February 12, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – many of these employees were clocking full time hours before the employer mandate. That’s my f’n problem. Yours is a lack of reading comprehension. Now Staples is cutting those hours AND not giving them health benefits. You think that’s hunky dory and I don’t. I think you’re the one with the smelly opinion, not me. And it stinks to high heaven.
February 12, 2015 at 4:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.”
It’s the lack of reading comprehension on the part of many on here. Funny, I don’t seem to have that problem with the ones that actually follow what I’m saying.
February 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – did you read the buzzfeed article? Check your comprehension.
“Alice” was “clocking” between 25-40 hours per week as a part time worker. (Part time workers don’t work 40 hours. Also, it does not say she was scheduled for 40 hours). “Alice also admits that she knew it was wrong because she says “it was a slap on the wrist” if they went over 25 hours.
So basically, she was okay with the slap on the wrist for breaking the rules, but now it is Staples fault that she might lose her job for breaking the rules.
Can you not COMPREHEND that she was purposely breaking the rules (aka stealing), taking something that did not belong to her?
You leftists always want to support the excuse of the “victim”.
February 12, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Libby, in our 5 years of debate on this so called law, do you remember criticizing me and other Conservatives who had objections to Obamacare and practically screaming that the law hadn’t even been implemented yet so what were we bitching about? This article is all about the employer mandate and the start of the implementation and the headaches for businesses. Then you criticize Staples for not just absorbing all the costs the mandates have visited upon them. When did you get radicalized and so anti-business like your President?
February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
the girl was clocking the hours because the manager allowed it. The manager probably needed someone to work the hours and because needs the money, she took the hours offered. Just because someone is scheduled to work doesn’t mean they’ll show up. Also, sometimes staffing models are not good at predicting demand for clerks and managers have to call in more people. (Ever been to a grocery store when only 2 lanes are open and the lines are going back through the isles?)
It is not stealing if the person going over their regularly scheduled hours is needed in the store.
February 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
**and because she needs the money**
Dang I wish we could edit posts.
February 13, 2015 at 2:02 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
KYjw – I appreciate your comments. The article does not explicit say she was authorized for the extra time. I agree that authorized extra time and willingness to work is good and okay. Stuff like that happens and it has happened to me in the past (asked to work over because someone did not show up).
The person in the article admitted to getting her wrist slapped for the extra hours, which implies it was unauthorized.
The problem I have with Libby, is that she thinks Staples should continue to allow these people to have the extra hours. It is their business and they can do whatever they want, regardless of their motives.
She thinks it is immoral to do so. I think there are many more things that take place in this world that are a lot worse, but it is accepted by society.
February 13, 2015 at 2:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA.
See? I can admit when I’m wrong.
February 13, 2015 at 3:20 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you, Libby. I appreciate your comment.
February 11, 2015 at 4:51 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, about $13,000 for a hubby & wife in IL, so not too far off.
However, if you multiply that $3,000 difference times 38,639 empolyees, the total difference is cost is $115,917,000. Sounds like a pretty significant difference.
Ron, my figures don’t include dependents nor did it include Dental, Vision, Disability or hearing.
I have a two man group. One family unit is $3000. Hubby, Wife 3 kids. Late 30’s all kids under 10. May I add this is my last remaining group. I am sure the owner is kicking it to the curb next year.
We can debate this all day long.
Until the real number is crunched business by business, we will never know the true number.
February 12, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Certainly a company as big as Staples can get a better group rate than that, FFA. A two-man group isn’t really much of group, now is it? I know my employer pays about $350 of my monthly premium and I pay $80. It has a $3,000 deductible, which I am responsible for. Not the richest plan out there, but I have coverage and some skin in the game. And it’s not bankrupting my employer.
February 12, 2015 at 1:23 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, I cant comment on what I don’t know. I don’t know any health but IL. I know my Medical Out of pocket – including premiums was dancing around $30,ooo last year.
80% of all business are small employers. Staples in the 20% range.
February 12, 2015 at 3:13 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA,
You said, “I cant comment on what I don’t know.” That is Agent’s job.
February 11, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Crain says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Whose margin is slimmer? Staples or their part time employees trying to pay for a health claim? Just asking.
“Whose margin is slimmer? Staples or their part time employees” Then the part time employee shouldn’t work at staples. Maybe the part time employee should have gone to school, studied hard or even learned a skill so that their employer would value him/her enough to provide insurance. Instead of people like you wanting to mandate the benefits of Staples, how about donating 50% of your income to better other people’s lives. Then if all the generous people like you do this (I say this sarcastically), the world will be a much better place.
Shame on Obama for trying to tell private business how to run their business. He has no business experience. He jammed this cost down everyone throats and increased the cost to everyone. If not today, then wait for tomorrow.
FFA, What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against each other for his own political benefit. That is what Socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up in a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth of Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Lou Holtz.
Do you think Holtz is on the watch list yet and the IRS audit list?
Now now Libby… AA is from Il and on the news last night another IL politician headed to jail. Its just a natural reaction from us Flat Landers. Every Liar may be a politician and all politicians are liars.
True story… My Gr Son caught his mom in a lie, got upset with the lie and called her OBama.
Once again this president mis-speaks. The large consulting firms all estimated that up to 60-65% of large employers may in fact drop employer sponsored health care all together. When commenting on mom-and-pop stores he said that it is one thing for those who can’t afford to pay minimum wage!-what world is he living in-mom and pops pay minimum wage!! His lack of knowledge is frightening. On the issue of providing health care for their part time employees-it could cut their profits by 30%. Group plans can easily run $3-400 per employee per month-multiply that times the annual premium and it could add up to $185,000,000!!! That does not account for the overhead and administrative cost.
All the more reason to provide universal healthcare so that Staples can eliminate all the costs of providing healthcare to its employees. It also has the benefit of letting Staples employees quit their jobs and go someplace else that pays more since they are no longer afraid of losing their health insurance.
I have to ask Stan, if we have ‘universal healthcare’ and it will eliminate Staple’s cost of providing healthcare, healthcare will still cost money so who, exactly, is going to pay for it?
Stan per Face the Nation a few months back, over 50%of the people in Congress are millionaires. TY99u really think they will cut their own throats or do you think they are just greedy pieces of crap?
I think the inability of congress to pass meaningful healthcare reform has less to do with their own personal wealth and more to do with their interest in retaining their congressional seat.
FFA, are you against term limits? Serious question.
February 11, 2015 at 5:24 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, per Lou Holtz,
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat! That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
February 11, 2015 at 5:47 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan, I am all for term limits. These life time guys pushing their agendas to fatten their pocket need to go. I don’t have to look too far to see what Life Timers have done to this state.
My point was that some of the very people you look to pay for Universal Health Care are the same to pass the law.
February 11, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree that the people passing the law would be affected, but many democrats are also millionaires and you could get universal coverage passed with enough dems.
And I am glad we agree on term limits. Too often people act in the interest of securing their seat rather than their constituents.
Agent, are you against term limits? Do you need me to spell out what they are before you opine?
February 11, 2015 at 6:10 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan… Lifers in Springfield and in Chicago have ruined this state. One of Rauners big campaign promises was Term Limits. Many people voted for him for that very reason. He is gonna have a hard time with the likes of Michael Madigan being one of them, but I do believe that is one promise he intends on keeping.
I believe Rauner is going to follow Walkers Blue Print in WI. He is already yapping against unions saying if people don’t want to be in the union, they should not be forced to as a condition of employment.
Its going to get nasty fast… There has already been an anti union movement going very slowly. McCormaick Place (all but a ghost town these day as many national conventions have relocated), The Chicago Trib, the Sun times. The list is getting longer…
February 12, 2015 at 6:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In other words,
Give us the money you earned, or we burn your house to the ground.
Got it.
Also: The 1% are called that for a reason. Even if they averaged income 100 times more than the middle class, if you took 100 dollars from them, you could give 1 dollar to each American. Do you see the math there, or don’t you?
No matter how much you tax the rich, you won’t get very far into helping the poor, but you may very well make it harder on them. The 1% includes people making not much over $150k a year. These same people have businesses which are 10-20 people. This is where 97% of businesses are, and this is where easily half of all the 1%’ers are at.
So making $150k, they must pay for the life of all people making $35k right? That isn’t moral Stan.
I just showed someone math that shows someone with 3 kids, with Obama’s new credit, and with subsidies for healthcare, and housing assistance in WA state, and food stamps, and college aid, and electricity aid, could get the equiavelent of a single person after taxes (or checks from the government more than $0 in the case of the lower class person) would out earn their $70k single counterpart.
That isn’t moral.
Threatening to burn down houses because you don’t have a free life isn’t moral.
It also would never work. Robbing the rich wouldn’t even come close to providing for the poor. Revenues in businesses are not the profit in terms of dollars left over. You hear of the trillions of dollars of revenues firms have. Even firms like Dell, with a billion in revenues, results in that owner making a million a year. One one thousandth of the total revenue of the firm. If you tax the revenues, you will harm the people working for the firm, as there is only enough overhead for even the CEO to get a million a year.
There are only 9.63 million, millionaire’s in America, in net worth (not annual income, which is way under)
Sorry, Boob. The 1% arent better than us. They are luckier sure, but they arent inherently better or harder working. So many factors go into economic outcomes besides hard work.
February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I call you Stan, you will call me Bob. Not boob.
Also: Did you read the articles or not? Only 5% of the wealthiest 1% are 1 million in earnings a year. 8% are 500,000 to 999,000. Those are the only people that could possibly have not worked harder, though they have, and you just won’t admit it.
The rest of the 87% are under $250,000, and EVERY single person in that income range works longer hours, and harder than the average American.
That income range I know damn well how to get into, and you would too if you stopped trying to think the lower class were harder workers than the people in that 87% of the 1%. If the lower class were harder workers, THEY WOULD BE THERE Stan. I have hired people that will NEVER be in that 1%, yet our field opens the opportunity.
For small business agencies, you see this differential if you pay attention. Some brokers only want to work minimally and make $60k. Some dedicate their life, lose their time with kids, and build a business up to $250k.
You would be robbing 87% of those 1%’s hard earned money in the under $250k range. And if you targeted the 13% of the wealthiest 1%, you wouldn’t get enough money. That was my point. Math. The wealthy cannot pay for the lower class, which the MAJORITY of the lower class CHOOSES to not work hard. I am involved in the programs for the lower class to help them, as is my wife. She can barely get people to get out of drugs, alcohol, or to take care of their kids, let alone get in to a college and actually try, or a good job.
The 1% works harder than you, indefinitely. You label them because you want to justify stealing.
February 13, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was tempted to call you “Bob,” but after reading the content of your message, I’ll stick with Boob, Boob.
The 1% simply does not work “harder” than roofers, construction workers, chimney sweepers, miners, or any other physically demanding blue collar job. Do they do more sophisticated work? Maybe. But that isnt “harder.”
There are only 24 hours in a day and lots of people work hard. Far more than 1%. To allow so much wealth to accrue to so few at the expense of so many is criminal.
To think otherwise is to subscribe to Ayn Rand: fantasy.
Grow up you dumbass, these are peoples lives that we’re talking about. Let them see a doctor.
February 13, 2015 at 5:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
1: These people do get to see a doctor. What you mean is pay the according bill in full.
2: The content of my message does not make me a boob, and your pathetic opinion labeling me doesn’t make it ok to make a label on me.
3: I have worked lumber, dumb ass. And I will tell you it was not harder than what I do now. There is something easy about showing up to the chain, knowing how much you will be paid, and getting benefits of working there. I made $38k, even back then, and with the profit sharing I had quite a bit to work with when I left. The “blue collar” jobs are not harder, do not have longer hours, than $250k a year jobs.
4. Stop with the class warfare.
5. So disregard math because you have your panties in a bunch? All I see is some brat kid saying: But but, forget the math! My emotions say this!
You don’t even have a single relevant point!
The majority of the lower class who (leeches) off of subsidized healthcare, are NOT blue class. They are live off the government class. I have seen these numbers. They are people content to be in the jobs they are, not progressing, not going to college, not trying, and not taking the chances we gave them with our firm (paying them lucratively). These are people who used to work the blue collar field. I gave them chances, THEY FAILED.
February 13, 2015 at 5:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should put some further commentary here:
I had no support. None. I worked wherever I could get a job, and I worked my way up everywhere that I did.
And I got to where I needed to be. It wasn’t luck.
In your experience, do kids do better in families that provide them college, etc? Or do kids do better in families that more or less force them to learn the value of a dollar and do it on their own?
Why do you suddenly believe the opposite when it comes to the government?
You know darn well what your thoughts are there. Apply it to the “daddy” government.
Falling on one’s ass is exactly what triggers the growth process.
I have seen two hings common in those that do poorly:
They are carried.
They don’t take their failures personally (blame others, whether corporations or the government).
And I have seen people succeed, (myself included).
They all fell on their ass. Without exception.
They all took their failures devastatingly (personally, blamed themselves)
February 13, 2015 at 5:31 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My question there is one of the REAL questions Stan, that you don’t ask yourself.
My father (while living) used to say something of me, this is over ten years ago so it is hard to be verbatim.
I told him I didn’t know how to get where I needed to go, that I kept on falling, and I had people relying on me despite my personal weakness in life.
He said:
You’re right. You aren’t like your siblings. You mess up, and then you ask the hard questions, and then I have seen you NEVER mess up again, and come back even stronger every time. I don’t know where you got this idea that you are weak, but you are not. You are the strongest of your siblings, and the most honest with yourself.
Now this points out a few things: You consider me to be arrogant. In person you would not. My background is rather humble.
But it also shows that I had a hardcore knock on the ass, over a decade ago. My father talked me through it, but I took care of the issue and came back. Now I am going to earn more this year than my father ever did. When he said that, I was the least paid of my siblings.
Falling down saved me. And if the government had propped me up, I never would have gone far.
February 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Not long before he died, he reiterated it phrased more like:
I don’t know where you got this idea in your head that you are on such a lower level than you are. You are worth just as much as anyone else. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
A couple years before that, when I was moving toward ownership with the firm I work with, I told him I was intimidated, I didn’t have the know how of the owner.
He told me I had the makings of one, that was all that mattered, the rest was going to come in time. All these years later, I still don’t consider myself where I need to be. But I always question myself, not someone else.
February 13, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’ve served my country, worked hard, put myself through college, done excellent work for many years, yet I’m nowhere close to being in the 1%. That whole thing about hard work and education is a lie. No matter what you do, the rich keep us from geting anywhere in life, because they take too much salary for themselves (they do not provide 1,000 times the value that I provide). The top executives do not run the companies by themselves. It takes the work of everyone else.
February 13, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry Shirley, Boob here just demonstrated that since youre not in the 1%, you dont work that hard. Bummer.
February 13, 2015 at 6:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You have chosen not to have an income in the range of the top 1%, which starts at roughly $100k.
My brother went to college for 2 years, he has an entry level job at $73,000.
Att has customer service reps, up to level IV, level IV gets $63,000.
Banking Financial jobs can easily get to $100k.
Insurance jobs can easily get to $100k.
What I am saying is that the majority of blue collar jobs, have chosen to be low paying jobs. The average household income being at $50,000 roughly combined, shows a great deal of choice in staying in dead end jobs, if simple two year degree jobs get $73,000 per one earner. Two earners would be $146,000 at that point.
You made your choice, and your spouse.
Don’t blame it on others.
February 13, 2015 at 6:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hell, a customer service rep level IV family earner would be at $126,000 and be part of the top 1%, which would then expand to be obviously, not 1% any longer.
This proves that choice and being an idiot is the primary factor to not having above a $50,000 income. $100k is easy to obtain in two household earners. EASY.
February 13, 2015 at 6:14 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“sorry Shirley, Boob here just demonstrated that since youre not in the 1%, you dont work that hard. Bummer.”
Spoken from someone who blames all his problems on someone else.
What is funny how you are sarcastic on this item. You are so clueless as to how to get ahead in life.
February 13, 2015 at 6:16 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should also note:
Studies show the majority of people in those blue collar jobs eventually move out of them, to the field like my brother’s (He didn’t move into it until he was almost 40).
Younger people take those jobs. Older people, it is a lot less common to be in such a low income bracket. Is that coincidence I wonder? That older people don’t make excuses and actually get into the higher paying jobs, while the younger people blame everyone else? (even in Stan’s case, he blames the older people).
February 13, 2015 at 6:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Really,
My wive’s father was an accountant who made $60,000 in the 2000’s before he died.
That is more than a decade ago.
Of course wages have become crap since then, as my sister makes just over $60k as an accountant now, the point is that these are 2 year degrees.
Getting to a combined income over $100k is pretty easy, yet only 10% of the population does $90k or over. It shows the majority of people are just basically lazy, and this is why they don’t climb the ladder.
I have seen opportunities everywhere I have worked.
February 13, 2015 at 6:58 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Boob, I think you’re confused about how labor markets work in the context of “chosen” salaries. Look at lawyers for example. Law schools have been graduating 50,000 new graduates each year, despite the fact that the market can only absorb 20,000 new jobs. This has depressed wages, putting the average salary in the $45-65k range. And this is for a highly educated, white collar workforce.
This prosperity gospel that you’re preaching is exactly that: a sermon. Nothing more.
There is a surplus of labor in this country that is depressing wages for all except the owners of capital. As such, redistributive policies – – such as universal healthcare – – should be enacted.
For a country of such shocking wealth to allow so many of her citizens to go without healthcare is treason of the highest order.
Your Boobish ranting about hard work, choice, and laziness cant hide it. Youre just not better than someone making less, nor are you worse than someone making more.
End. of. story.
February 16, 2015 at 10:45 am
Libs have ruined America says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sounds to me like Stan and Shirley are both pissed off at the rich because they were either too lazy to work harder for what they thought they deserved, or too stupid. I’d say it’s a combination…perhaps if they weren’t so obsessed with other people working harder, working smarter, and getting further ahead in their lives than they did, they wouldn’t be so pissed off at the world.
February 16, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, it is a shame that the American Dream is fading from the scene. This country is full of stories that people had an idea/dream and worked hard to achieve success and once they make it in life, they are criticized by the underachievers, many of which are on this forum. The entitlement society this President has been pushing is that the government is the solution to all problems. Famous words – You didn’t build that. It is only government that creates success. Hello! Government is a hindrance, not a creator of success.
February 17, 2015 at 8:54 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
“Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.”
A $100,000 income DOES NOT make you part of the 1%. You’re delusional.
Only ten percent of dual working families make $90,000.
Are you saying, that the market only has the capacity to give a single person $45,000 a year? Because you’re wrong.
The fact is that the other 90%, are split into a few groups. Some marry later, and so still fit into the $45,000 for now, but will get into the 10% later, but the majority, DO. Not. Try.
February 18, 2015 at 12:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
The average 1% household does not make $500,000 Libby.
Read the links.
Also, keep in mind I combined two aspects. Assets, and earnings.
Those who are millionaires, which I gave a specific number, have an income average much lower than one would think.
Many only make $100,000 a year, AND saved and invested. This put them in the top 1%. They are in the numbers I included in the links.
The majority of the are under $1,000,000 in earnings. As my link showed, 8% make more.
We are talking 8% of 1% making a lot of money. You could never get enough from that 8% of 1% to fund the lower class, but the more you take from them, due to profit margins being $1,000,000 on a Billion dollar company, they would increase the cost of all of that billion of revenues to even get a marginal raise in income. It is math.
You would harm the poor more with higher taxes than you would with lower.
Also, of course, as I always say: The lower class wages won’t change. That bottom section of jobs in the sector will always be the rate of pay that it is. There is no cash flow to increase it. So those jobs, would be royally screwed by higher taxes, indefinitely.
February 18, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – 90% of people DON’T TRY??? Really? Are you nuts? And since when is making $45,000 a BAD thing? That’s the AVERAGE wage in America, you turd! How dare you disparage hard-working people because of the amount of money they make. To answer your question, YES $45,000 is what the market bears. You need to look outside your own little bubble, which you rarely do, to understand the facts of life, pal.
February 18, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – your methodology is flawed. You can’t include assets in determining federal taxes. You don’t pay federal tax on your assets. You pay federal tax on your income.
And yes, the AVERAGE 1% made in the $500k range of income.
February 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A: I said that a good chunk of the 90% don’t try, and a good chunk will get there later.
B: It is EASILY safe to say that AT LEAST half of America does not try to get higher earnings and doesn’t deserve it.
C: I never said $45,000 was bad earnings, I said it was easy to make. So if only 10% of joint households make $90,000 combined, it shows people aren’t trying.
D: I have hired in excess of 15 people the last two years. 2 made it. The others were lazy.
E: I am not determining tax rates with the assets. I am showing demographics show that making it without these people being taxed more is an impossibility. Obama has determined that Millionaires can afford more tax. I’m showing he is a liar. Those with assets in a million should not be taxed more. Those with earnings are only 8%.
F: I am well aware of the average earnings in America being $45,000. I was not mocking the dollar amount. I was mocking the very fact, that most people don’t try, and that is why they make that wage. A customer service rep with ATT for 10 years can make $63,000. An accountant with a 2 year degree can make $60,000. A programmer with a 2 year degree can make $70,000. Apple recently said part of the problem is our people here do not have the college education to do what they need. We have people going to college naively, for ludicrous jobs, then they go make $12 an hour as a result of their error. You have to scout your job before you land the degree, and the fact is at least half of college graduates don’t do this. They educate first, think second.
G: How dare I talk about the issues that the majority of lazy people have?
Let me say it ten times:
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
And it doesn’t make me bad for it. I come from a family of hard workers, and we are always surrounded by lazy bastards. My boss is the same way.
For every one determined person you have, they are surrounded by at least 20 deadbeats.
You know when you see the one person.
They take care of everyone’s things.
There is one in most families.
February 18, 2015 at 2:41 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So for example:
I drive my mother all over in old age.
My dad did this for his dad.
I cleaned out my Aunt’s house with my dad, when she died, before he died.
We sorted the stuff out.
He paid for his Aunt’s expenses while she was down and out (still retired a millionaire due to good life choices, I don’t have respect for people who say they can’t do it, and he had a family of 8 kids)
I took care of one brother who lost a job for two years at the beginning of the recession. As in expenses paid.
When people move in my family, I am the one who does it.
I am the one they call.
These personality types, the “get crap done” types, are NOT the majority. It is insulting for YOU to try to say this would be more than half the population. The vast majority do not try.
Get over it.
February 18, 2015 at 2:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’ll add an additional one:
EVERY
SINGLE
CONSTANT
1% EARNER
IS
A
HARDER
WORKER
THAN
ANY
MIDDLE
CLASS
PERSON.
PERIOD.
If you want to get to that income, go ahead. Do it. Or lie and blame someone else. Millionaires are popping up self made more now than any other time in history. It is easier now, not harder. So go do it then, if it isn’t hard.
You can’t?
Then shut up!
February 18, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob-
A. A good chunk of the 90% “don’t try.” Really? Don’t try to do what? Make more money? There’s a bigger definition of success than how much money you make. To say they don’t “try” is insulting and arrogant. Much like you.
B. It is EASILY safe to say that AT LEAST half of America does not try to get higher earnings and doesn’t deserve it. See point A above. Just who do you think you are to decide who deserves what around here?
C. If $45,000 is the average wage, it is NOT easy to make. Many people work very hard and will never make $45,000. You’re an arrogant prick.
D. I have hired in excess of 15 people the last two years. 2 made it. The others were lazy. I would say that has more to do with your management style than it does about their work ethic. But being an arrogant prick usually makes for a bad boss. Just look at Agent.
E. I am not determining tax rates with the assets. Yes you were. You define millionaire for income tax purposes as someone with over $1M in assets and earnings. Disingenuous and dishonest form of debating.
F. You WERE mocking. ” customer service rep with ATT for 10 years can make $63,000. An accountant with a 2 year degree can make $60,000. A programmer with a 2 year degree can make $70,000.” Where? In Seattle? Maybe. Not in Podunk, IA, Mobile, AL, Jackson, MS or Central PA, pal. The world is bigger than just Seattle, WA. Open your eyes and learn a little about other people instead of spouting off like your little corner of the world is representative of everyone. What a putz.
F. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT LAZY.
G. As for your litany of good deeds, mine is as long but probably longer since I have lived longer (alot longer) than you. I am the go-to person in my family. The one that solves all the problems, the executor, the fixer-upper, the whatever you want to call it. So what? That doesn’t make me better or harder working than the rest of my family. It only means I have the skills to do it.
Not everyone was born with a genius IQ like you purport to have (but fail to use on a regular basis). Not everyone has the luxury of a college education because they had to stay home and work to support their family. You HAVE NO IDEA of the struggle of normal, every day Americans. Now you just need to shut your pie hole about lazy people and get back to work, you turd.
Retail work is being turned into something it was not designed to do. Aside from management type positions, retail was often a stepping stone and not a career. Often these jobs were held by teenagers. Now, due to democratic policies, so many manufacturing jobs first left democratic strongholds such as cites, and now have left many other locations in the country. This displaced many people who would have had good careers elsewhere and forced them into retail which was not set up as a long-term career path for people.
As he so often does, Obama got the number wrong inferring that Staples made billions in profit.
Musing, while wondering why the President didn’t go after Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) and their billions in profits or GE with their billions in profits. Could it be the Romney connection?
How about we get rid of all the corporate deductions/credits except those tied ditrectly to increasing jobs and/or wages for U.S. employees?
February 12, 2015 at 3:33 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron-I’m all for a flat tax. I like the suggestion about incentivizing for increasing jobs and wages. Caution though, that could eventially have an adverse affect on inflation.
February 12, 2015 at 3:42 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity, Warren Buffet gave HALF (that’s right, half) of his fortune to charity to the tune of a whopping $37B. That’s BILLION. Show me where a Republican billionnaire has done anything close to that.
February 12, 2015 at 4:28 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – that is great. That is his choice and I sincerely applaud him for that.
I bet he claimed it on his taxes and saved more than you and I make combined. Just saying!
February 12, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
How could that have an adverse affect on inflation?
February 12, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – You criticize him for taking a tax credit on $37 Billion dollars that he GAVE AWAY to CHARITY???
Except to further their political agenda, the Koch Bros. have given a fraction of that amount to actual charity. Their net worth? Over $100B.
The hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds.
February 12, 2015 at 5:45 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – I was not criticizing about the tax credit, I am simply stating that he probably saved more than you and I made. I would have, too.
Logic tells me that he preferred to direct where he wanted his money to go (to charities of his choice) rather than getting taxed on it and giving it to the govt to squander.
RE: Koch bros. – don’t know, don’t care. It is there money and choice how they spend it or give it away.
That is what freedom is about. They will answer for whatever “good works” they choose to do (or not do). You liberals want the freedom to choose to kill babies. Conservatives want the freedom to spend their hard earned money the way they want to.
Killing babies is pure evil. Spending money can be good or bad. Just my opinion.
February 12, 2015 at 5:46 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
oops…meant to say “their” money.
February 12, 2015 at 6:09 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity, isn’t it interesting that the current problem of the Employer Mandate issues was put off until after the mid terms and Obama is free and clear until he leaves office. The landslide would have been even worse for Democrats who passed this law without reading it, had the Gruber scandal and now this new issue with business. I can see why they delayed the implementation as long as possible. Now, business has to deal with it just like we predicted it would.
February 13, 2015 at 11:01 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – I agree. Those that put this monstrosity in place were deceptive in what they told us, and the blind sheep were too stupid to not use logic to see what the outcome would be.
Ron – regarding your inflation question, there is a possible ripple effect. Lower deductions = lower net profit. Lower net profit may lead to increased costs of goods, resulting in increased inflation. I’m not saying this would happen, but that it could.
February 13, 2015 at 5:54 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – I also agree. If everyone would have just listened to the Democrats who pushed for universal healthcare during the Clinton admin, we wouldn’t be stuck with this Republican-created plan. Maybe our middle class would be better off, like the middle class in Canada.
February 13, 2015 at 6:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is not a republican created plan. Just about the only senator who did that was republican was Snow.
And universal government coverage is not good. It should be called “universal except for anyone but the government”.
Subsidies is fine, and leaving insurance in tact. Making it illegal to buy insurance is not a privileged. It is a restriction.
Only in America can democrats be so stupid, that they would call a restriction a liberty.
If you believe the government will be better, then let them handle people who want government care and leave the OPTION for insurance.
Or is it that you want to apply FORCE and establish a government control type of situation?
Also: Just a fact, considering our lifestyles we do have the longest life expectancy in the world. It is our healthcare system. It is the only thing it can be.
February 17, 2015 at 8:57 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Who said anything about making buying insurance illegal? Nobody besides you.
February 18, 2015 at 11:39 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Also: Just a fact, considering our lifestyles we do have the longest life expectancy in the world.”
Bob – there are 35 countries in the world with a longer lifespan than we have here in the US. Next time, either do some research first or just don’t say “it’s a fact” the next time you aren’t actually posting facts.
Holy crap, Rosenblatt! I never thought to fact-check that little gem. And just note that ALL countries with universal healthcare have a higher life expectancy than the U.S.! So much for their healthcare sucking.
Thank you for going the extra mile on this. But I doubt bob will respond. He doesn’t usually once proven wrong…
February 18, 2015 at 12:32 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m always skeptical when anyone on the internet says something is a fact without providing any evidence to support what they wrote.
That’s especially true on this site.
Although he may feel differently, I’m not singling out bob — I’d do the same to you or Stan or whomever else posted a “fact” that’s easily researched online and proved to be false.
February 18, 2015 at 1:00 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I learned my lesson with that, but sometimes I make a mistake. When that happens, I will admit to it and apologize. Don’t see everyone doing that here, though.
February 18, 2015 at 2:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
100% agree Libby — there are only a few people here that have admitted when they were proved wrong. Just based on the comments in this article, you and I are definitely included in that group. I know there are others who have admitted their error too, but it’s definitely the minority of posters here who can admit their mistake.
I think it speaks volumes about a person’s character when they can be an adult and just admit their mistake(s) without obfuscating that fact in some way.
February 11, 2015 at 2:00 pm
Producer #1 says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is common for a HR person to include “Health insurance and other benefits” as part of the overall “compensation package.” In other words, when a new employee is being offered the job, they may discuss annual wages as one part of the “compensation package.” Hence, as the benefits change, so too will the “compensation package.” It seems odd to view health insurance as an employee benefit, part of the ‘compensation package’ but now the employee may suffer a loss. If employees will be asked to accept lower wages to help offset higher costs in health care, then Health Ins should stop being discusses as an employee benefit. Its an employee cost, not an employee benefit. Yes, I realize that the business owner will also have additional costs, so will the consumer… we all loose… goodie.
Producer #1 – If the employer is providing the healthcare coverage, they are paying the lion’s share of the cost. As such, it is a benefit.
In all likelihood the Staples part-timers did not recieve healthcare in the first place, so they did not lose anything (from a healthcare standpoint). They lost some hours, which was predicted.
Yes, they lost something. They lost a good portion of their income when they were busted down from 40 hours to 20. That’s HALF their pay and still no health insurance. It should have been criminal, but unfortunately it’s not.
Read the article, Libby and get your facts straight. They were not working 40 hours. These are the people that were working 28 hours a week and stretching it above 30 hours.
They were working up to 40 hours a week with no admonition from management.
February 12, 2015 at 5:48 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Read the article…the admonition was a slap on the wrist. I guess since it was only a slap on the wrist, it made it okay.
February 13, 2015 at 8:53 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, shame on Staples for not making themselves clearer with their message. I do not fault these employees for trying to make a living and support their families.
February 13, 2015 at 11:07 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You’re incredible, Libby. You’re blaming Staples for the employees not following the rules. How much clearer can they say “don’t work more than 25 hours” be?
You don’t fault these people for trying to make a living and support their families. Me, neither. But there was a line that was crossed and you are trying to justify it. Please, admit this for once.
Would it be okay for them to rob a store to “support their families”?
February 13, 2015 at 11:59 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh, quit being ridiculous, Integrity. Their managers did nothing to stop the extra hours. Therefore, they were complicit in allowing it. They’re all big girls and boys. If they didn’t want to pay the extra house they would have enforced the policy. An unenforced policy is the same as no policy at all. That’s just the way it is. Get off your moral high horse.
February 13, 2015 at 2:11 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You know. Libby, you are right when you say “An unenforced policy is the same as no policy at all.”
It kind of reminds me of immigration. Obama has no enforcement policy (to the point of filing lawsuits against AZ that is trying to enforce the law), therefore, there is no immigration policy.
Didn’t he swear to uphold the laws of the Constitution? Was he lying then?
By the way, I am not up on a high horse. My morals are grounded in truth. It only looks like I am on a high horse from your perspective because your perspectives are below the dirt.
February 13, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow! Try to be more judgmental, Integrity. You can’t. With “Christians” like you, who needs enemies?
February 13, 2015 at 2:39 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And unless you expect Obama to get on a horse and patrol the border, border patrol is not his job. No more than it was Bush’s before him.
February 13, 2015 at 5:11 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – I want to apologize for the earlier comment about being on a high horse. It was overboard, and I am sorry.
Regarding the border patrol, it is his job to uphold the laws of the Constitution. The Dept of Justice reports directly to him. Holder and the rest of his minions are looking the other way and preventing others from upholding the law.
Since Obama is Holders “supervisor” he should hold him accountable or fire him. Instead, Obama instructs him to sue AZ to prevent them from upholding the law.
Your comment does not hold water.
February 17, 2015 at 9:06 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – The Constitution makes protection of our borders the FEDERAL government’s responsibility, not the State government. Not to mention the fact that the detention of U.S. citizens until they prove their citizenship is un-Constitutional in and of itself. We are not required to carry papers proving our citizenship. Therefore, we could be detained indefinitely according to Arizona law. I don’t want to live in a police state. Do you?
February 11, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
A huge segment of the Shareholders in America are hardworking middle class folks who have 401Ks loaded-up with Staples and other similar US Corps. Corporate Profits fund an awful lot of jobs and retirements in this country.
Are you telling me that it’s fair to take money from those hard-working shareholders and give it to another hard-working American? Where’s the equity in that? What ever happened to earning your way?
Great point, Dave. The snowball effect, if Staples had to pay for all the extra healthcare, would mean lower profits. This would mean a lower share price and dividends, until eventually noone would want their stock anymore. Then Staples would end up like many of the other defunct retailers – out of business.
I know exactly what my 401k is invested in and it isn’t the stock of my employer. Enron did that and then cheated their employees out of all their retirement when it all went belly up due to their thievery.
Since then, I believe, it is a big no-no for company’s to force their employees to put their 401k into company stock. It can be offered as an option, but not the only option.
February 11, 2015 at 2:20 pm
knowall says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Have no fear, Obama is here, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”
“It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy”.
Just for some perspective. Typical healthcare policies cost approximately 8-12K per year. Lets say it is on the low end. The cost for 38,000 additional employees would be 304,000,000. The company had a net profit of 620 mil in the last fiscal year, but lost 209 mil the previous year. Over 4 years they averaged 569 mil in net profit. The company had a 3% profit on sales and a 10% ROE. For such dismal returns, I don’t think the CEO should be making a tenth of what he is making, but if he was not paid, it would not make a dent. I would not be surprised if Staples and companies like that will not last another 10 years unless they figure out a way to reign in costs. I am also sure that most of these part time workers also make less than minimum wage and could not care less about their health benefits. If they increased their per hour wage by 5 per hour on these same 38K workers at 20 hours per week that’s another 200 mil. (yes that is coming, too).
GROUP health insurance policies don’t cost anywhere near $8-$12k per year per employee. Not to mention the employee bears some of the cost as well. You people and your “new” math are ridiculous.
In Illinois, Group has been more expensive then individual. Been that way for years way before the PPACA came to be. It happened due to HIPPA. Pre Hippa, people had the option of keeping what they had and converting it to an Individual Policy. HIPPA pushed COBRA on Employers when it already did exist with out putting the Burdon on the business.
HIPPA doesn’t have anything to do with COBRA and I certainly don’t see what that has to do with group rates. There is no reason group should be more than individual coverage, in Illinois or any other state. You have a bigger spread of risk. Maybe you just don’t insure large enough groups to see the benefit.
HIPPA brought the end of guaranteed conversion making COBRA necessary.
Exactly what Carriers said would happen to group did happen when they lost the ability to medically underwrite (HIPPA). Group became more expensive. I don’t know why. I have not seen the actuarial data. All I know is the hand I am dealt to sell. Group has been more expensive in IL for a long time then has been individual. Maybe its because Individual was medically underwritten and group was not. I just don’t know. I really don’t care why. I need the info to sell. That’s what I get. I don’t worry about things I cant control. I worry about putting it on the books. Of course, no point in even trying to go after group any more.
It is what it is. In a few short months, I’ll be able to comment on WI. I expect the insurance rates will be way less then what I see in IL. My Car insurance alone will be 30% less.
February 12, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No. COBRA went into effect in 1985. HIPPA not until 1996. Even if you are guaranteed coversion of your health insurance, it didn’t guarantee conversion with the same premium. The carrier could jack up the premium. COBRA limits the amount the carrier can increase the premium, but you have to pay the whole thing instead of your prior employer contributing.
From what I’ve read, individual is cheaper because there is a larger pool of people sharing risk than in a defined group. Many groups are giving a benefits allowance to their employees allowing them to purchase individual health insurance on their own. I think that’s a good alternative.
Good luck with selling your house. I’m rooting for you! Any showings yet?
February 12, 2015 at 2:08 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Why not pile a little more n me…. Inspector came by to give the final approval on the renovations. Passed.
He proceeds to tell me that the renovations on my office space forthcoming will make it next to impossible for me to stay here and function during the rehab project. So, looks like my office may be moving too.
Sign goes up on the 19th of Feb. Had some stragglers come through during the renovation, but nothing serious.
Realtor telling me about 60 – 90 days of market time. Last house in my neck of the woods at my price range went in three days.
February 12, 2015 at 2:21 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t you rent your office space?
February 12, 2015 at 2:44 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes Libby. I rent the office. Its the same reason I had to move Aug, 2013. Building sold and extensive renovations were planned.
February 12, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was wondering why you’re making renovations on an office you’re renting. If I were you, I’d try to hang on until my house sold and say arrivaderci to both of them.
February 12, 2015 at 4:38 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Maybe I can find a buyer for the agency and just be done in IL all together… Live off the sale price. Stick my hand out grabbing what ever I can from the govt.
February 12, 2015 at 4:42 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, Group rates have had terrible dependent rates for many years. If you have young men in a Group, the rates were good for them. Try adding a spouse and kids to it and see the eyes bugging out. A young man having premiums pulled out for his family coverage would not have much left over to pay his bills so he often opted out and got Individual coverage for the wife and kids so he could afford it. The lucky ones were the wife being covered at her work and him being covered under his work. If there were kids, they would have to decide which policy to put them under. Tough choice either way.
I wrote an off exchange policy on a single mom. The group rate for the Dependent was higher then the mom. Higher premium on the group for a 14 yr old girl then on a 41 yr old mom.
February 13, 2015 at 12:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Do you know how often Moms drag their kids to the doctor for every cough or sniffle? Do you know how many kids break bones roughhousing or playing sports? Not to mention she’s about ready to begin puberty, which brings on a whole plethora of medical issues. A healthy 41 year-old Mom is a pretty safe bet for medical expenses.
February 13, 2015 at 12:38 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
yes Libby… I know. I am raising three kids one of which I had to pick up from school on Tuesday because he fell, hit his head and got a concussion.
We have a weekly appointment with a shrink (not for me).
My wife runs off to the doc with every sniffle.
February 11, 2015 at 2:24 pm
DWIGHT says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I own a 3 person Insurance Agency(Me and 2 staffers). In order for my staff not to get a pay cut, I decided a couple of years ago to give them a raise to cover the fact that the payroll tax cut was not extended. Now my accountant tells me I can no longer provide pretax Health Insurance Benefits Reimbursements to my staffers because of ACA. Any such reimbursement must show up on their W-2 as wages. In order for them not to get a pay decrease, I have to now pay the extra payroll taxes myself. Looks like I’m the only one trying to look after my middle class employees and nobody is looking after the small employer!
What we have here is a President who just does not get it nor does he care. Rather than show true leadership, he using the Presidency at a platform for to push his radical views America and the world. He expects everyone else to have his same views or he views them as evil. Of course people are going to do what it takes to survive in the marketplace, including converting works to part-time to prevent from having to pay for something they cannot afford. This disturbs him and if he could, he would would want to control society as he had demonstrated, however he is being handcuffed by the law of the land and this frustrated him because he cannot be who he wants to be. I know this post is going to get some thumbs down, I truly wish I was wrong about the President, but if one really looks at the evidence, they will know I am right.
You’ve stated Obama has “abused” his Presidential power by pushing his agenda (ACA) through when people didn’t want it, but you also said he needs to to “abuse” his power more to pass laws that Congress does not pass (such as TRIA, before the new session started).
Sooooo is he REALLY handcuffed by the law, or can he do whatever he wants regardless of the law? Or both?
You are incorrect in saying the people didn’t want it. They most certainly DID want it. That’s why he was elected in the first place and re-elected in the second.
Libby, wrong again. He was elected the first time by appealing to low information voters like you with the slogan of Hope & Change. Actually, he said he would fix the economy and didn’t, but plunged right into Healthcare which is the most colossal mistake by a President & Liberal Congress in the nation’s history.
With the second election, the liberal media giving him a pass on everything and getting the economy into full entitlement mode and the loyal low information crowd, unions rigging the vote in battleground states and he managed to squeak it out because Romney wasn’t hard enough on him. By the way, as we have seen, Jonathon Gruber’s lies were not known until recently about this bogus bill or it never would have passed muster no matter how many lawmakers were bribed or intimidated by Pelosi & Reid.
Agent – since you didn’t vote for him, either time, you are not qualified to state why the people that did vote for him did so. It most certainly was for healthcare reform. It was also for Hope & Change, which INCLUDES healthcare reform. A refreshing change from the decades of do-nothing Republicans that do not want Americans to be healthy or have access to healthcare, but do want to take us into foreign wars over oil.
The only mistake Obama made is not pushing for universal care for this country and instead he pandered to the right in an effort to “compromise” by adopting a half-baked idea cooked up by the Heritage Foundation. Even that didn’t suit your side. You won’t be happy until the masses are all poor and sick so you can take advantage of them with your millions.
You make me sick.
February 12, 2015 at 1:55 pm
Agency says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I never stated such a thing, you need to reread what I wrote rather giving me your DNC prepared response.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I saw Obama coming from a mile away and you should have too. It was a very easy decision for me since I am not a wealth redistribution guy. Nothing has changed in 6 years. Lies, lies, more lies and his minions extending the lies. A law born on lies and passed in a totally partisan way is not a prescription for good law or government. You seem to forget the Blair House meeting a lot. Republicans offered their ideas and got brushed aside and told that he would do it their way and get on the back of the bus. This President has not compromised his agenda in any way. You are too old to follow this Progressive route like Stan, Ron & Rosenblatt. It really is sad and yes, you make me sick too.
Every President has pushed their own agenda. Just because his is one you don’t agree with doesn’t make him wanting it any worse than your guy. And yes, you were told to get in the back of the bus regarding healthcare reform because you had the last 8 years to do something and you did nothing. Why should you be allowed to steer the bus now? Sorry, sit down, buckle in, and shut up. That’s you place for now.
February 12, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
and I get dragged into this conversation that I’m not participating in…..why now?! Because I’m old? Guess my age, I bet you’re wrong (as usual)
February 12, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
…or guess how young I am. I still bet you’ll be wrong!
February 12, 2015 at 2:26 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nah, Rosenblatt. You’re not old. You’re young like Ron and Stan. I’m the old one he was referring to. And yes, Agent, I am old enough to know better than to vote for someone that is against my best interests. Too bad you’re not smart enough to figure that out yourself.
February 12, 2015 at 2:28 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
30’s.
February 12, 2015 at 2:34 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
You said, “It was a very easy decision for me since I am not a wealth redistribution guy.”
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is
February 12, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Continuation:
Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!
February 12, 2015 at 2:47 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My Guess Rose…
Old enough to know better but young enough to do it again…
February 12, 2015 at 6:28 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!”
Rosenblat, he just put words into Agent’s mouth. I don’t see your commentary. You asked me to show when it happened. It just did.
Agent never said he believes in wealth redistribution, and he never said he believes in increasing taxes on the middle class to fund wealthy tax breaks.
In fact, Agent believes that both can be done, and the middle class benefits from lower taxes on the wealthy.
So Ron just put his assumption of his beliefs, into what Agent believes.
I’ll just say it for you then, Rosenblatt:
Ron: DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO AGENT’S MOUTH.
That is agent’s job ;) as you recently mocked him on and said on a similar issue.
February 13, 2015 at 8:04 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
I did not put words into Agent’s mouth. Are you aware of his Fair Tax plan? He wants all working Americans to have “skin in the game”. That includes me and the rest of the 43% who, due to low income, tax credits and/or deductions, do not pay federal income tax. In addition, he wants to lower the taxes for the top 57%.
Please tell me how that is not wealth redistribution.
Since Agent was not capable, maybe you can tell the class:
If you force people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck to pay federal income tax, how will that help the economy? Remeber, this means more money to the government and less to the private sector. Will you lower the taxes for the top and force them to create jobs even if there is no demand?
February 13, 2015 at 8:56 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – you’re not on IJ enough to follow the conversation, so I suggest you keep your assumptions to yourself. Agent did indeed tell Ron that ALL Americans, including the 47% that do not pay federal income tax, should pay something and that the “job creaters” (ie. the 1%) should get tax breaks.
That is most certainly a redistribution of wealth. It just happens to be taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
February 13, 2015 at 9:25 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – In prior conversations, Ron asked Agent AT LEAST 5 times to explain how Agent’s tax plan was NOT a redistribution of wealth.
Agent kept replying, ignoring that question, and Ron kept pointing out how it was a redistribution of wealth and kept asking Agent if he disagreed, to explain how Ron was wrong.
If Agent did not want Ron to think his tax plan was a redistribution of wealth, Agent needed to speak up at least once in the 5+ times Ron gave him a chance to explain.
PS: You recently told me to stop calling people out as the IJ police because it was childish, but now you get on my case for not calling Ron out. Make up your mind dude. Simple question: do you want me to call people out or not? You can’t say “no, don’t do it” and then give me cr@p when I don’t call people out without being a hypocrite.
February 13, 2015 at 11:34 am
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron – you said – “If you force people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck to pay federal income tax, how will that help the economy?”
They are many people above the poverty line that live paycheck to paycheck. That cannot be the reason why someone should not pay federal taxes. I know you did not say it, but it is inferred.
Regarding the distribution of wealth discussion, all of you are missing the point that all the money goes into the govt to help those that are really in need (below the poverty line) None of that money is going to the rich.
The rich will have more money to fuel the ecomonic engine, whether it is through spending or investing. That money will increase govt revenue and promote industrial growth (jobs and wages). It’s not black and white and there will be greedy corporations that hold back, but by and large, it moves the economy in the right direction.
For those that are living paycheck to paycheck and near the poverty line, there might be assistance available that improves their overall situation.
We need to motivate society to help themselves and not rely on the govt.
February 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
You did not answer the question. I am well above the poverty line, but still live paycheck-to-paycheck and pay no federal income taxes due to having 3 children, a mortgage, make charitable contributions, have student loans, and pay state income and property taxes.
If I start paying federal income taxes, every dollar that goes to the goverenment is one less dollar I spend in the private sector. Please explain how that will help the economy?
Agent’s tax plan is to increase my taxes and have his lowered. He wants to redistribute my “wealth” to him through taxes. His plan actually makes it more difficult to improve the situation in which 43% of the population are currenty in. Get it?
If we lower the taxes on the rich, those who are currently making sufficient income to cover their expenses and also save, will you force them to spend the money and/or create jobs? Investing does not automatically create jobs since a lot of investment goes into technology that actually reduces the number of employees needed.
February 13, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
One other thing.
You said, “For those that are living paycheck to paycheck and near the poverty line, there might be assistance available that improves their overall situation.
We need to motivate society to help themselves and not rely on the govt.”
Those 2 statements directly contradict each other.
Who pays for the assistance?
February 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron – I would guess that a large portion of the middle class live paycheck to paycheck, myself included. I have all the same obligations that you mentioned. My Fed tax burden, however, is not eliminated entirely as yours seems to be. I am glad to hear that you have the ability to take advantage of the deductions that allow you to do that.
I do not know exactly what agent said regarding raising taxes on you, so I cannot defend or dispute them specifically.
My comments are meant to point out that it is not an even exchange of tax dollars (you put in an extra $5 and Agent pays $5 less). Personally, I do not think taxes should be raised on anyone. They should be lowered for everyone.
The next then becomes where does the money come from? The answer is that some revenue will come from the economic engine being started as mentioned earlier. A large portion of the revenue should come from reducing the size of the govt, itself. There are billions and billions of wasted money spent by the govt. They only want more of our money to continue to spend it. They are using the excuse of taking care of the poor to raise taxes. We could take care of the poor if they got rid of some of the other wasteful programs and cracked down on fraud.
I can see why my statements seemed contradictory. Sorry about that.
First, I recognize that there is a portion of society that needs help. Many (maybe most) of these people are trying to live the American dream but circumstances make it more difficult to move ahead. These people should be assisted (i.e.help them help themselves).
There is another portion of society that expects the govt to take care of them. These are the lazy people who do not WANT to work. They are content with their living conditions and these are the people that defraud the system.
I know of families that purport that they are separated and get govt assistance for their kids under the impression that they are single parent households. They get twice the subsidies that they should get. Both parents are drug addicts and make their children lie to perpetuate their assistance.
These people deserve nothing other than the opportunity to get cleaned up so they can support themselves. The children should be cared for and shown the love they deserve.
It may seem heartless. I think it is tough love.
February 13, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow, Integrity. I actually agree with everything you just said. Will miracles never cease? Oh, wait a minute! My perspective is lower than dirt, so maybe it’s not a good thing me agreeing with you after all…
February 13, 2015 at 3:06 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
You said, “I do not know exactly what agent said regarding raising taxes on you, so I cannot defend or dispute them specifically.” Agent believes every working American should have “skin in the game” and pay federal income taxes. Therefore, if someone, like myself, does not currently, it is a tax increase. Do you agree?
If I put in $5 more and Agent pays $5 less in taxes, is that a redistribution of wealth? If not, why?.
The last portion of your post I totally agree. The problem comes with identifying who is who. If we could just cut off the lazy, you have my blessing.
February 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm
integrity matters says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – Thanks for agreeing with me. Regarding the “lower than dirt” comment, I apologized for that awhile ago. Sorry you missed it.
Ron – If the govt revenue from taxes was static, yes, there would be a “pseudo” transfer of who is actually paying the taxes.
It is not static, however, and the paying in of taxes is offset by the deductions one qualifies for. Neither of us can say whether the net affect would change or not. It would depend on the increase and the available deductions.
You mentioned in an earlier post that $1 taken from you for taxes is $1 less spent in the economy. The same holds true for the wealthy, although, they are likely to spend a lot more, by comparison, than that $1 (it’s relative). Their money spent has a greater chance to filter down to increase tax revenue and promote investment by corporations, providing job growth and higher wages.
Lastly, living paycheck to paycheck, for many of us, is the result of own own choices, myself included. Many (if not most) of us live above our means with credit because we want the new car or big screen tv now. I admit I have not been responsible enough with my money.
Getting tax breaks should not hinge on my (or anyone else’s) personal finance choices.
Likewise, the govt should not be propping up the portion of society that is making a choice to live off the govt, because they are comfortable with that lifestyle.
February 19, 2015 at 8:56 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
integrity matters,
You said, “You mentioned in an earlier post that $1 taken from you for taxes is $1 less spent in the economy. The same holds true for the wealthy, although, they are likely to spend a lot more, by comparison, than that $1 (it’s relative).” That is blantantly false. The wealthy are far more likely to save than spend if you lower their taxes because they already have more than enough to be able to buy whatever they want.
The middle class drives the economy, period.
In my opinion, nobody wants to live paycheck-to-paycheck and in most cases it is not due to financial decisions. It is more of a product of the economy. If everyone made enough money to save, the prices of goods and services would go up because people could afford to pay more. That will never stop in a capitalistic economic system.
You said, “Likewise, the govt should not be propping up the portion of society that is making a choice to live off the govt, because they are comfortable with that lifestyle.” This I agree with, but how do you determine who falls into that category compared to those who legitimayely need the assistance due to circumstances out of their control? I highly doubt most people who rely on government assistance are happy and living comfortably in nice homes, eating fine food, driving nice cars, etc. Most are probably very ashamed.
February 19, 2015 at 9:05 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Integrity – You’re welcome. However, I feel compelled to point out that this is the second time you have called me out for “not noticing” a post of yours. If you go back and look at the date/time stamp of my posts you will see that I posted them well before your replies. I am up to date in my responses and I do appreciate your apology even if I didn’t say so at the time.
February 11, 2015 at 2:39 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Who else got an invite to sit in on Bidens “ObamaCare” Conference Call?
FFA, it sure is a shame that some people on this blog do not know right from wrong. They were brainwashed into believing Obama was looking out for their best interests. Some say he has been honest and forthright with the American People. I wonder why the polls keep giving him an “F” in trustworthiness and low marks in governance. The liar in chief really did a number on their brains.
Ron, it is a shame you are a knucklehead and voted for Obama too. Joe the Plumber would have made a better President. Had Obama done nothing but play golf all day every day and not proposed anything at all, the ship would have righted itself. Instead, he chose to make things worse by massive Keynsian spending, doing nothing for business except tax them more and then impose his redistribution of Healthcare scheme.
Please quantify how things have gotten worse. Also, please cite a source that shows annual spending has been increasing since 2010. Finally, why was it OK for President Reagan to increase spending, debt, deficits and taxes during his term, but not President Obama?
February 17, 2015 at 3:07 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ok Ron, lowest labor participation rate in 30 years. Actual wages declining from pre 2009, food stamps at an all time high, disability claims at Social Security at an all time high, people giving up looking for work so they drop out giving skewed results on the unemployment rate. How many more signs do you need to see the economy is ill and not getting better?
February 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
None of these things are indicative of the economy. They are by-products of which the health of the economy has no bearing. I will take GDP, stock markets, consumer spending and increases in net jobs over any of your indicators of the economy.
Why is the labor participation rate so low when companies, including your agency, are making record profits? Why aren’t they expanding and hiring? If you tell me it is because of who is the president, you may be the dumbest businessman, EVER! It is because consumer confidence (demand) has not been fully restored. Hint: Increasing taxes on 43% of the population will only make this worse.
Why have wages not increased? Because workers have not been in a position of strength due to the financial collpase that did occur under our previous president. Most empoyees are still in “happy to have a job” mode. As that changes, so will wages.
Why are record people on food stamps and disability? These people fall into 3 cateogries:
1. The group of people who depend on these legitimately due to circumstances outside of their control
2. People who are depending on these benefits temporarily until companies start hiring and/or increasing wages.
3. People who are too lazy to search for work or are committing fraud.
What about spending and my question about President Reagan?
February 18, 2015 at 10:50 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Interesting facts about the labor participation rate:
1. The highest rate occurred during President Clinton’s administration (67.2%)
2. The greatest increase during a single term was under President Carter (4.33%). Would you say the economy was booming during hie term? The second highest increse was during President Reagan’s second term (2.65%)
3. It is currently the lowest since President Carter left office, over 35 years.
4. We have experienced the greatest decline during President Obama’s first term (-2.74%). The second greatsest decline occurred during President Geaorg W Bush’s second term (-1.93%)
What does this tell us? Labor Force Participation is not indicative of economic health (see results during Carter’s term) nor does it espouse to any political affiliation.
February 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t confuse Agent with the facts. He doesn’t believe them.
February 13, 2015 at 3:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Integrity, so Ron is playing the redistribution of wealth game with you too complaining that I want to raise his taxes and reduce mine. I made the point that 47% pay no Federal Income tax and 53% pay all of it and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in this country. He doesn’t seem to get it does he? New poll out has 49% of all Americans living paycheck to paycheck, we have an out of control government continuing to waste tax dollars and proposing to waste even more by doing the two year free college education, free day care, free, free, free. How about cutting the waste out so all Americans get a tax break? Why not get rid of this nightmare Progressive tax code and install a flat or fair tax? I am sick of supporting half the population with high taxation on myself and business. It needs to stop.
I am not playing the redistribution game, only pointing out that you are for redistribution of wealth.
Please explain how increasing the taxes on 43% of the country in order to lower the taxes for 57% is not a redistribution of wealth.
Also, please explain how taking billions of dollars out of the private sector and handing over to the governemtn will help the economy?
Until you can provide those explanations, keep you fair/flat tax plan to yourself.
You said, “I am sick of supporting half the population with high taxation on myself and business. It needs to stop.” Then move out of the country or sell your business and find a low enough paying job and join the 43%. I guarantee you that neither of us will be around if/when the progressive tax code is gone. Just being realistic.
I tell you what Ron, I will take my current tax rate and keep paying it if you will pay “some” Federal Tax rate, then you can’t accuse me of redistributing the wealth from you to me. Is that a fair offer? Can you swing 5%? Your $30,000 income would be only $1,500 and you could help reduce the deficit. Obama would be proud of you for accepting Personal Responsibility.
Agent – that’s $125 he’s probably paying per month for his student loans. Something you didn’t have when you were his age raising a family. Could you have afforded to give the government $125 per month back then? I think not.
1. Fair enough. Now convince your Republican friends to increase taxes on 43% of the country and see how long your majority lasts.
2. I make far more than $30,000. Your plan would take $2,500 out of the private sector (I will have to cut my spending by that much) and give it to the government. Now multiple that by ~10 million households It may help the government, but please tell me how that will help the economy.
Ron, I understand what you’re saying but that logic applies to ALL taxpayers, not just the 47%. What happens if we all hang onto our money and nothing is contributed for roads, infrastructure, education, assistance, defense, etc? The country would go to hell in a hand basket.
February 18, 2015 at 7:52 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
I am not talking about increasing or reducing taxes for anyone. I am only pointing out to how Agent’s tax plan would adversely affect the economy that, even though improving, is still in a fragile state. In my opinion, the governemtn already has plenty of money. My position is more focused on reducing spending than tax reform.
As I mentioned to Agent in the past, it 43% that do not pat federal income taxes, not 47%. A fact that should make Agent happy. When you think about who makes up that 43%, it is not exactly people swimming in discretionary cash. These are people who will need to spend less in the private sector in order to pay more in taxes. That is my point.
Don’t know why everyone gets so worked up. You voted in a community organizer whose only skills are giving speaches and giving away other people’s money, irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. ‘s only got 2 more years to keep burying our grandchildren with his doubling of the national debt.
Perhaps a new president can bring back jobs and cut back on all the giveaways so we can get this country going back in the right direction. The alternative is we can keep going down this road until the workers get fed up supporting half the country and revolt.
I will assume that you also criticized Presidents Reagan and GW Bush for doubling the debt during their terms.
The debt did not double because of any of these presidents. It doubled because our representatives in Congress, from both parties, are more interested in bringing home the bacon to keep their jobs that actually cut the spending to help the country.
Also on the local news, the Jacki Robinson West Little League team that appeared in the Little League World Series was stripped of their title and all their victories for cheating… Corruption on all levels even at the expense of children running rampant in IL.
Yes, I saw that FFA. Corruption started at the top and has worked its way down to Little League Baseball in their pursuit to win it all. I suspected this for several years. Chinese Taipai would come over to play and their kids were taller, stronger than the American kids and they had bogus birth certificates. I don’t think they were ever penalized.
Agent — Says the man that has a son in jail for cheating. His daughter in law is also headed there for her corruption / cheating too. He also has a child born out of wed lock while he was married while he was “counseling” Bill & Hillary through their marriage issues.
And Agent, may I add I did not watch the news last night. Had a late night with kids getting to bed – more turmoil – so I watched The Americans instead of the nightly news.
The Americans is one of our favorite shows, but not suitable for children due to the nudity (Kerri Russell) on display last night and the occasional violence. Pretty good spy show on how the Russians were gleaning info from the US. That FBI guy is a real dufus. They are right under his nose and he has no clue.
February 12, 2015 at 1:34 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In the first episode, he was sniffing around their car as it resembled the general description. Eager to find out how the Faith plot is going to play out. Real slick escape from the trap last night too.
February 12, 2015 at 1:42 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
…and Hank didn’t know his brother-in-law was selling meth for years. They’re TV shows dude, you need to suspend reality every now and again.
PS: now asking for the 4th time today Agent — do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
February 12, 2015 at 2:01 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rose, I have a life long gal pal. Met her x in High school. Two years ago, came to be that he has been a Coke Head since before they met. Issue didn’t surface until he decided Heroine was a better choice for him. The hank thing is more relatable to me – almost reality. Took everyone by surprise big time.
February 12, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
She’s either pretty naive or just asleep at the wheel.
February 12, 2015 at 2:52 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Naïve… He hid it well. He dad was a cop. He didn’t even know.
February 12, 2015 at 6:24 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Asleep at the wheel Libby? I think you must have been asleep at the wheel when your first hubby was cheating on you and then you stood by your man until he wore his welcome out.
You were also asleep at the wheel when you let the smooth talker talk you into voting for him twice.
February 13, 2015 at 8:58 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, you’re despicable. The fact that you would bring that into conversation is disgusting. I hope you rot in hell.
February 13, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey FFA, another late breaking story from the Washington Times. On the left coast, the embattled Oregon governor who had the “fiance” who was using her “position” to abscond with funds so he decided to resign. Guess what, he will be replaced by a half lezzie female Secretary of State. I guess they don’t have Lieutenant Governors out there in lefty land. By the way, Oregon never wrote one policy of Obamacare in their exchange despite receiving millions to set it up. They might not be quite as corrupt as Illinois, but they are gaining.
February 13, 2015 at 5:01 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Tell me oh great bigot, what is a “half lezzie?”
February 17, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey FFA, I don’t know if you caught any of the series – State of Affairs starring Kathryn Heigel and Alfre Woodard playing the President. What a good show it has been. Lot’s of drama with the CIA, White House and their pursuit of terrorists. It is the only programming I watch on the Brian Williamless NBC.
February 13, 2015 at 11:10 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, how about we lightening up from quarreling with the Progressive Leftists on this site. A buddy of mine sent me the following funny email. Title is Sheriffs Exam in Texas
A young Texan grew up wanting to become a lawman. He grew up big, strong as a Longhorn, and fast as a Mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces.
When he came of age, he applied to where he had dreamed of working, a West Texas Sherriff’s Department. After a series of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy called him into the office for the last interview. The Chief Deputy said, you are a big, strong kid and you can really shoot. All of your qualifications look good, but we have what is called an “Attitude Suitability Test” that you must pass before you can be accepted. We don’t let anyone carry our badge, son.
Then, sliding a service pistol and box of ammo across the desk, the Deputy said, take this pistol and go out and shoot: six illegal aliens, six lawyers, six Meth dealers, six Muslim extremists, six Democrats and a rabbit.
Agent, after reading a few of your statements above, I am just shaking my head. You’re a disgusting, dark-hearted ass. The limited times I comment it is usually a general message regarding everyone’s behavior, but you took the cake this time. You are miserable.
February 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As far as I know, JR is in jail. He asked for his wifes’ time on his sentence but the judge said no. He gets out. She goes in. Sr lost any and all respect when he was caught on tape referring to Ny City Heimie Town.
February 17, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Nerd, if you were reading my joke and think that of me, you have no sense of humor, kind of like Ron, Rosenblatt, Libby etc. Why don’t you post one of your Progressive jokes and ask me what I think of them. There are plenty around about the President who is the biggest joke in the country.
February 18, 2015 at 8:12 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, for at least the 4th time – please stop dragging me into discussions I’m not participating in. If you really want me to comment on this thread I will, but I don’t think you’ll like it.
February 18, 2015 at 9:23 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – if you can’t read over your posts and figure out which ones Nerd is talking about, you’ve got to be the dumbest poster on IJ. But then again, you are!
February 18, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Insurance Nerd says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, my comment was certainly not about your silly little joke. I said ‘your statements’, not ‘your joke’. FYI, I have an excellent sense of humor and am not a Progressive. I’ve just never run across anyone quite like you. That’s not a compliment, by the way.
February 11, 2015 at 6:48 pm
fastdriver says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If Obama is so concerned about these corporations cutting people’s hours, let him pay for their health care.
If Mr. Obama actually had any real business experience, he would understand some basic business concepts.
#1: Revenues – Expenses = Profit
#2: 95% of the time, government regulation INCREASES EXPENSES.
#3: If expenses are increased in one area, a company must either increase its revenues or cut expenses in other areas to make up the difference.
Libby–what is it with you today calling everyone ‘pal’?? You sound angry and sarcastic. And….I don’t refer to Obama as president, either. I have ZERO respect for the man, and I don’t even like typing his name. He may be YOUR president, but I certainly don’t consider him to be mine. If he were a president of the people, by the people, and for the people, then I’d consider him my president.
Trust me, as long as you are a United States citizen, he’s YOUR President, too. You may not like him, but you need to recognize his position. I didn’t like Dubya, but he was the President like it or not. I didn’t vote for him either time, but he still got elected and I was still stuck with him. I would expect your side to show the same respect we did to your guy. And, yes, the pal comment was somewhat sarcastic. I get tired of the lack of common courtesy on here because you disagree with his politics. It’s petty and immature.
You do not talk, nor did you talk, cordially when talking about Bush W.
She/he does not have to put president before talking about Obama.
It is actually you being a brat asking her/him to call Obama President Obama any time she talks about what she doesn’t like.
She isn’t mandated to give him a cordial name, nor any politician. We don’t give cordial names to corporate aholes, and we aren’t about to do the same for their (more corrupt) government leader counterparts.
Mr, as a side comment, is actually a title that screams “I respect you as a human, not as a bad president” so she/he was WELL within bounds of respect.
February 12, 2015 at 3:49 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No, bob. It has nothing to do with being cordial. He is NOT Mr. Obama. He is President Obama. Period.
You should address him as such or just call him Obama. And no, I didn’t speak cordially about Bush, but I never called him Mr. and I never denied he was my President.
February 12, 2015 at 4:33 pm
nomesaneman says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Interestingly, NPR has been taking flak on the “President / Mister” topic since Gerald Ford as well.
Trust me, Libby is angry that her adulation of this President has been so wrong for almost 7 years running. I tried to find anything I agreed with him on about governing or policy and he was found wanting in every case. I disagreed with Bush on a lot of things, but I did agree with him on some things. Not one agreement on Obama. He is a very bad President, the worst of my lifetime.
Really, Agent? You can’t find ONE thing he did you liked?
How about (1) Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and NOT as his VP, or (2) sending in troops to take out Osama Bin Laden, or (3) relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, or (4) reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children?
None of those 4 things you liked? Not even one?!?
PS – attempt # 5: do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
February 12, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Libby is angry that her adulation of this President has been so wrong for almost 7 years running.”
How dare you put words in my mouth, Agent. I am not angry nor do I adore Obama. Speak for yourself and leave me out of it, old man.
February 12, 2015 at 6:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt:
“How about (1) Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and NOT as his VP, or (2) sending in troops to take out Osama Bin Laden, or (3) relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, or (4) reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children?”
1. Is not a highlight. Character choice is your argument then?
2. Any president would have done this. He also derailed the search for Osama by releasing Gitmo detainees, and also otherwise lying that Osama was never in Iraq to use it as a means to win the election. He used Bush W’s intel, while condemning the methods that lead to it. Even while we got Osama, Obama made us go backwards in how we deal with terrorism.
3. I am going to have to see this one, as the republicans specifically had a fight about this that was mentioned during the debates, between Romney and Obama. Wherein the republicans said they didn’t want to pass a law that would make it possible to sue a company far more leniently, in terms of discrimination. I highly doubt he laxed any laws regarding this. Unless you mean to say he made it easier to sue for discrimination and that is your definition of laxing the laws. That is not a good thing. Only a matter of opinion if you think it is.
4. “Re” authorizing something that was already in place I take it? One that could help his image and involved kids?
February 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is not putting words in your mouth, Libby, for him to say you are obsessed with Obama.
Otherwise, your commentary to many conservatives here, would be the same.
So stop trying the idiotic tactic of saying “you put words in my mouth!” in order to discredit agent.
Rosenblat, this is exactly what I said you take the wrong side on.
Libby just bluntly tried an ad hominem style tactic to discredit agent and to be misleading.
The thing you hate.
I don’t see you taking action.
February 13, 2015 at 9:02 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
First of all, bob, he didn’t say “obsessed” he said “adored.” I do not ADORE Obama. And neither am I obsessed with him any more than you are obsessed with Bush.
You’re really reaching here trying to find something to with which to scold me. I was correct in telling Agent not to speak for me. He can say that’s his opinion, but he can’t state it as fact. If you think that’s nit-picking the issue, so be it. But it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right.
February 13, 2015 at 9:28 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – You recently told me to stop calling people out as the IJ police because it was childish, but now you get on my case for not calling Libby out.
Make up your mind.
Simple question: do you want me to call people out or not?
You can’t say “no, don’t do it” and then give me cr@p when I don’t call people out without being a hypocrite.
February 13, 2015 at 10:06 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
True, Rosenblatt, but I didn’t do anything to be called out for. Agent made a statement about what I think and how I feel, which was totally off the mark. I called him on it. Period.
February 13, 2015 at 11:28 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree Libby, but I was trying to avoid getting dragged into other points in this conversation I had nothing to do with in the first place.
I just want bob to be consistent with his message to me.
Either he wants me to keep calling people out or he doesn’t.
He can’t tell me I’m childish to call people out, tell me to stop, and then tell me I need to do a better job of calling people out – nor can he tell me I need to keep calling people out and then tell me I’m childish when I do so.
I’m just trying to figure out if he wants me to call folks out or not as it seems to me that he wants it both ways.
February 13, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They all want it both ways.
February 13, 2015 at 3:42 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
GenX, Progressive have no clue about profit, just government solutions to everything and to h – – – with businesses. Wonderful Hillary thinks businesses don’t create jobs. I sure hope they play that tape when she is running. Between her and Elizabeth Warren, they are so anti-business, it is a joke.
We used to joke that American had the best politicians money can buy. These days we just have politicians that money can buy and no “best” about it. Both sides suck for many reasons. We don’t need politicians. We need leaders. We need so many things I don’t see ever happening. We truly do have a divided country when we are living in a time where we need to be more together than ever before. It is a shame to see how this great country has fallen apart in just a few decades. Both sides are at fault. Both.
Wayne2–at least the right is more constitutional than the left. That, in my opinion, is what separates the men from the boys…or, for you libs, the women from the girls. Gotta be politically correct on all accounts.
Yes. Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional and I will show you that it is not.
Don’t you think the Republicans would JUMP at a chance to humiliate, degrade, and impeach him if they could? They would. And they haven’t. Because they can’t.
February 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes. They would. And they have.
And any time they have tried, you mock them for trying.
What is your point?
Democrats are good at creating a lose lose political scenario. Stop us, you lose. Campaign your point, you lose. The only way you win is doing what they want.
February 12, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
When have they tried to impeach him? Never. That’s when.
February 12, 2015 at 6:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They have tried to bring lawsuits against him.
And what happened Libby?
You guys complained until the cows came home that it was not fair or right.
So on one end, you want them to do it to prove they have a case.
And on the other, if they try, they are playing politics, and you will burn their whole party to the ground in the media.
Don’t be absurd. You couldn’t have missed the lawsuits being filed.
Also, generally, to be impeached you have to take the matter to the supreme court. Which Obama has made a point of attempting to stop, by making it into a flame war, and he wins the public image by basically saying:
“These guys are so radical, that they are trying to file lawsuits against me and impeach me!”.
I have seen these things on every station, you are lying if you have not! You know darn well the republicans have tried, and now you jump to the other side to say that they haven’t, and the fact that they haven’t means that Obama has done nothing wrong?
And then you’ll jump back and say the very reason you will never vote republican is that they would DARE ever try to sue Obama.
Yeah, I get it. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
WAKE UP. You can’t be this indoctrinated.
February 13, 2015 at 9:08 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – you’re an idiot. Filing a lawsuit challenging an executive order is a far cry from impeachment. And since these lawsuits have not been tried yet, it is still undetermined whether he acted within the Constitution or not. He is innocent until proven guilty.
“And then you’ll jump back and say the very reason you will never vote republican is that they would DARE ever try to sue Obama.” WTF??? When did I say that?
have NEVER said I NEVER vote Republican, you twit. I voted Republican in the mid-terms. I also voted for Reagan. So, take your assuming ass and shut the hell up.
February 13, 2015 at 3:16 pm
Trust me I am not a liberal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby…now you’re gonna say that Clinton was never impeached, right?
February 13, 2015 at 4:30 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Did I say that? NO.
February 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Some Guy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The current tenant in the White House needs to act a bit more “presidential” in his last two years in office, and less like a spoiled child.
“Yes. Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional and I will show you that it is not”
You should know that Obama’s actions to further expand the power of the federal government has been defeated unanimously in 13 cases as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court since January 2012.He could not even hold the votes of his two appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor. His tenure in office has been a never ending assault on the Constitution that threatens the liberty and freedom we cherish as Americans.
You asked a question “Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional…” I answered your question. 13 unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court ruling against his unconstitutional acts since January 2012.
Your memory is short Libby. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Federal Grand Jury about his escapades with the young Democratic intern. Nixon had impeachment papers drawn up against him due to Watergate and lying to Congress about his role and protecting his minions. He only avoided Impeachment because he resigned and Ford pardoned him. Clinton should have been removed, but Reid blocked it in the Senate. Both of those rotten Presidents dishonored the office. The current President should have been impeached for his dozens of lies to the people, but Republicans would be called “racists” for doing it so they bide their time and we have less than two years remaining if the country survives.
February 13, 2015 at 4:05 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Attempt # 6
Agent — do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
February 13, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent hasnt even answered the weed / state’s rights question. BECAUSE HE IS A HYPOCRITE! BAHAHAHAH
February 13, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My memory’s not short, Agent. Your level of reading comprehension is, though. My comment was “Very few have been impeached.” Do you think 2 Presidents out of 40-something is very few or not? If so, then apologize to me. I certainly don’t need a history lesson from you, of all people.
Your “racist” cop-out as the reason for not impeaching Obama is just that, a COP-OUT. If you could, you would and you know it.
February 13, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And I’ll say it again:
“Filing a lawsuit challenging an executive order is a far cry from impeachment.”
Hey Patriot, how about that Federal Judge coming down on Obama’s amnesty plan which is also Unconstitutional? Another one on the list. President’s can’t make law or change the ones on the books. Another fight is brewing.
For those anti Keystone advocates, there was a huge train derailment in West Virginia yesterday and the train was loaded with oil & gasoline. The river next to the tracks had a big spill into it. Would this have happened with the pipeline?
Only the upreme Court can decide constituionality.
maybe if the Congress would address the immigrant problem, the president would not need to.
February 17, 2015 at 11:26 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron, only the upreme Court can decide Constitutionality?
maybe if the Congress would address the immigrant problem, the president would not need to. ??????
Ron, please go to typing school or grammar school. You are speaking a different language than we are.
February 17, 2015 at 11:57 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Now I see our disconnect. I focus on substantance and you focus on spelling and grammar.
No wonder why I constantly win our debates.
February 17, 2015 at 11:58 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Very pithy reply, Agent. Unless you have something useful to contribute, why don’t you refrain from being a troll?
February 17, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent – found this on another IJ article:
“Agent says: I gave you the source. Look it up for yourself. Most insurance professionals escept you take Property Casualty 360 for their informative insurance stories.”
Seems like you should keep your criticisms to yourself. You don’t always spell correctly and your grammar (Us Agents as an example) is atrocious.
February 20, 2015 at 5:56 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron, please describe your substance. You are speaking pig latin. I suppose that is the disconnect.
February 13, 2015 at 3:20 pm
POE ADDICT says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Obomb Obomb our savior is back
don’t worry brutha’ I’ve covered your back
your healthcare and food your vgra and b contra too
they’ll have to pay for it – not me and you.
From the rich we will plunder; R Hood would be proud,
we’ll have them pinching pennies and only eating scones
Indeed, they’ll be pawning their silver for me and for you.
Keep your doc and your favorite nurse too, oh by the way that doesn’t apply to you……….
Plus by the time he leaves office Mr. Obama will have doubled the national debt from $9.7 to over $19.5 Trillion. In eight years he will have added more debt than all previous Presidents combined.
Actually Patriot, discounting what will be added in the next 2 years, Obama has already added more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Bush did not add all previous debt. Yes, he added some in the war against evil doers after 9/11 and yes he signed onto much of the spending legislation of Pelosi & Reid. For that, I think he was a RINO and went along to get along. However, it pales in comparison to Obama and his free spending ways.
POE ADDICT, the rich are plundering the middle class every day. Raising prices and stagnating salaries and wages, while they take an increasingly (and obscenely) larger chunk every day.
Libby says: I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA”
So, you found proof that OBama was just talking to talk, making stuff up.
FFA, I want to wish you a Happy Valentines Day and hope your wife is doing well and in less pain. I took mine out last night because it is so hard to get in a nice restaurant on Valentine’s Day.
I asked one of them if they could put you on Stan and they said you could empty the garbage or bus tables or wash dishes. In no way would they let you be a waiter because they wanted people to patronize them again.
Mock away Stan. Everyone on this blog knows you have 0 credibility and are just a hater of anyone successful. I can certainly see why no one will hire your sorry butt. Go back to fleecing senior citizens and stay off this blog.
February 17, 2015 at 4:47 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Nice try, Agent. I dont hate successful people. I hate old people who take from the system while benefitting from a robust and growing economy then bitch when young people struggle under different circumstances.
I hate Texas republicans that complain about too much govt, but then demand protection from people who text when drive. I hate old people who complain about states rights but want to ban pot at the federal level.
I hate hypocritcal voters who have uneducated positions based on simplistic talking points.
Actually, come to think of it, I guess you do qualify after all.
February 17, 2015 at 5:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan, you have enough hate in you equal to 5-10 Progressives on this site. Were you an abused child or are you just an angry OWS type blogging in your basement while mooching off mom? You should try to get an appointment with a good psychoanalyst to rid yourself of your anger management issues. If that doesn’t work, perhaps a hypnotist could be of value.
February 17, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I wish I could see someone, but I cant because I cant afford health insurance because of republican policies. I wish you would work more so that I could spend your tax dollars.
I’m amazed that we’ve become so desensitized to the compensation enjoyed by CEO’s. There job is to maximize shareholder value and not to pay workers an adequate wage. There job is to build up the stock so they can exercise their stock options and not provide a good product or service. When this form of insider trading was approved under the Reagon administration, the landscape changed.
For years they went after blue collar America. Exporting jobs, killing off the unions. Now, they are coming after the middle class. Yes that is you and I. The 1% continues to thrive while the 99% sink. Yet, the conservative (rich) pundits continue to rail against Obama and all the bad things he is doing. So many of the middle class fall lock step into their party line, not realizing what is happening to them. Poor America! We are truly doomed to become a third world county ruled by the oligarchs. See Mexico.
jade, back in the old days, it was a great thing to be profitable and create jobs for working Americans. That is called American Exceptionalism and it actually worked. With the advent of Progressive Socialism and the highest corporate tax rate in the world, no wonder so many companies saw the handwriting on the wall and moved jobs offshore. If companies aren’t being taxed to death, they are regulated to death by the EPA or other government agencies. We have almost half the population paying no Federal Tax at all and the other half supporting them. 70% of the taxes are paid by the top 10% and yet they aren’t paying their fair share. Guys like Buffet, Gates have a legion of tax lawyers on the payroll to make sure their taxes are minimal. The people between $50,000 – $250,000 are the Middle Class to upper middle class that don’t get the same breaks and they are carrying the burden. That is why serious tax reform is needed to get everyone a fair shake on taxes.
Agent, I agree. Tax reform plus it is time to return to government for the people, of the people and by the people. Time to eliminate lobbying by large corps, who benefit from forms of corporate welfare. Large companies eagerly seek “regulations” to eliminate competition. The tax rates are high, but the proof is what is actually paid. Remember GE!!!
Jade the only alternative is to scrap the current tax code and eliminate the IRS. Based on the National Taxpayers Advocate the statues and regulations in 2012 equaled 4 million words roughly 450 words per page totaling 9,000 pages. When you add in the case law it is over 70,000 pages. For the years 2001-2012 the tax code has changed 4,680 times an average of once day. I believe your reference to GE pertains to year 2010 when some in the media incorrectly said they paid no taxes. It was later discovered the basis for their original report that they paid no taxes was a misreading of their financial statements, which are not the same as their tax returns. They paid state, federal and local taxes of $1B that year.
Patriot, you sound like a Ted Cruz fan, abolishing the IRS. A lot of people think he is a bit too much Tea Party, but perhaps what the country needs right now is to wake up, get back to the Constitution and do the right thing for the people instead of catering to special interests and the Progressive agenda.
February 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
jade, I remember when Obama appointed Jeffery Immelt, the wonderful CEO of GE to be in charge of job creation. His first move was to move a whole division of GE to China. He was creating jobs all right, for China. The US, not so much.
Agent those jobs moved to China help add to 2m manufacturing jobs that have been lost from the US since Obama has been in office.
February 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes Patriot, real wages have declined under Obama, lowest labor participation rate in 30 years, cost of living has gone up, record number of people on foodstamps, record number of disability applicants to Social Security, record number of people giving up for lack of a job and liberals think the economy has rebounded with their bogus unemployment rate.
February 19, 2015 at 1:22 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Still waiting for a response to the following:
Interesting facts about the labor participation rate:
1. The highest rate occurred during President Clinton’s administration (67.2%)
2. The greatest increase during a single term was under President Carter (4.33%). Would you say the economy was booming during hie term? The second highest increse was during President Reagan’s second term (2.65%)
3. It is currently the lowest since President Carter left office, over 35 years.
4. We have experienced the greatest decline during President Obama’s first term (-2.74%). The second greatsest decline occurred during President Geaorg W Bush’s second term (-1.93%)
What does this tell us? Labor Force Participation is not indicative of economic health (see results during Carter’s term) nor does it espouse to any political affiliation.
February 17, 2015 at 3:49 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Been in the field past two days and looks like you all been busy blogging…
Libby, Something that may be of interest to you.
On Saturday night (Valentine Day), I saw The Romantics and Lover Boy on the same stage. Not sure if this is a national tour, but it was a great show. Lover Boy was awesome!
Together. She was belly aching about the concert. I told her to stay home and I would take one of the kids. She said she would “put up” with it. Walked out smiling ear to ear – more then she did off the boat.
February 18, 2015 at 1:49 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You spoil her! She’s a lucky lady! My husband was out of town for V.D. :-(
He did get me roses and chocolate covered strawberries before he left, though. :-)
February 19, 2015 at 1:05 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I do still lover her… 17+ years and counting.
Realtor came by today. Took Pictures. Market Listing tomorrow AM. 60 – 90 days market time is what she is telling me.
Staples shot back on Wednesday, saying the company’s policy on part-time workers was more than a decade old and not a response to the 2010 health care law, known as Obamacare.
“Unfortunately, the president appears not to have all the facts,” Staples spokesman Kirk Saville said in a statement. “It’s unfortunate that the president is attacking a company that provides more than 85,000 jobs and is a major tax payer.”
Obama does not appear to have all the facts. Quite an understatement. Guess they didn’t cover this on ESPN.
Always, the American People are all owed an apology by Obama, Pelosi & Reid for foisting upon us the worst law ever passed by Congress.
OK, now I am tired of folks insulting my intelligence by offering conclusions which are nothing but assertions, or as I like to say, what they WISH was the truth. So here it is: how is the ACA the WORST LAW ever passed by Congress? What is so terrible? Republicans say this is also a jobs killer but they never offer any real proof, only debatable points. Assertions are not facts and I am tired of being offered such as “proof”. So prove to me that this law is the worst…I assume you can compare it to other bad laws? Like not requiring gun owners to inform the authorities when their gun is lost or stolen? Or giving the gun lobby standing in any municipality so they can sue and extort the fees from the loser. Are those the kinds of bad laws we are talking about?
Stush, Medical Cost have increased since passing it. I have many clients that lost hours and had to take a 2nd or 3rd part time job. There is no true out of pocket limit on OOP cost as Co Pays to specialist always apply. Enrollment period is same time as Medicare and Medicaid. Everyone in the country trying to shop health insurance right before the holidays. Web Site at a Billion Dollars. People lost their coverage. People had to change their doctors.
There are just some of the facts.
Good try FFA. Stush must have been living on some island in the South Pacific for the past 5 years since we have been debating it on numerous articles. If he doesn’t get it by now, he never will. How about the lies Obama has been guilty of trying to sell it and Gruber backing that up with his lies to the folks? I think that sailed right over his head just like it did with Libby and others.
Well, Agent, big business LOVES the ACA. Did you see that other article on IJ? Their greed knows no bounds.
I don’t know why 13 likes on my post above. It just sucks losing business because people have their hours cut so the bill they cut is insurance.
No one has countered my post as it can not be denied. This is real life main st USA feet on the ground info. No GOVT BS stats. Real life. Real people.
Big Business may love it. Real People that it has hurt hate it.
FFA – some people are delighting in the fact that people are hurting because it fits their agenda that the ACA is bad. I am not one of them and did not up-thumb your comment.
FFA – I think some “like” your comment to say they “agree” with your post. Not that they like what is going on.
“OK, now I am tired of folks insulting my intelligence by offering conclusions which are nothing but assertions”
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup. There are many on this site who feel if you don’t agree with them, you’re an idiot. There are still folks here who, even when you do agree with them, they’ll still call you an idiot anyway.
thanks Rosenblatt for that confirmation. No matter how many times I’ve asked for “specifics”, I get more generalizations, and FFA is no different. My golfing pals like to say that people never let the facts get in the way of what they believe; you can’t change their minds no matter what the facts are. The facts are that more people are insured than ever before. And using a few outliers as proof of the majority experienece doesn’t work for me either; using a single tragic case and making a conclusion is also a non-sequitur. To “all” of those folks that FFA says lost thier coverage and are suffering from the ACA I say this: now you know how those of us on the bottom felt BEFORE the ACA. I may not have the best coverage but I am finally covered. If they want an expansion of the coverage, they should go to their congressmen and have that legislated. And finally I say this, Rosenblatt, I stayed off of this discussion for a few years, before the ACA we discussed other insurance issues and it alwasy spiralled into the old LEFT VS RIGHT chaos and I was attacked personally…so this is my last post on anything for a while. I know this much, I have no idea what any of your lives are like but I haven’t attacked you but instead tried to just get involved in a debate. but without any moderator, and allowing anyone to comment without attribution (both the good and bad about the internet) has always resulted in someone shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater…that is, we always find those who push past the bounds of free speech, and especially here, past the bounds of civility and decency. Nuff said.
…and you didn’t even talk about how someone (most know who) keeps influencing which posts get promoted and which are hidden – not based on the merits of the post, but solely if that post is in-line with what that person believes.
I have tried every communication technique I know, and still have run into the issues you mentioned many many times.
I really wish we could move this forum away from the childish name calling and insults and towards an actual discussion (let alone debate – we’re far away from that. First things first, let’s try to talk to each other civilly without jumping down each other’s throats every chance we get.)
Yes, that was a generalization of this forum’s posters and does not apply to everyone the same amount, but I’m sure people will chime in and tell me what I wrote is not what I really believe.
Stush – don’t let any of us deter you from speaking your mind. I find for the most part people are respectful on here when you are in turn. There are just a few of us that sling the dirt. I am one of them, but only at Agent and a very few choice others.
Stush, you should really try to study harder and open your eyes and watch the news occasionally and you might learn something. I would caution against watching any of the major networks, especially NBC since their track record has not been good for the past 12 years under Brian Williams. Truth is not in their vocabulary.
Even if Obama had all his facts correct (which would be, if not a first, close to a first), who the heck is Obama to be deciding just how much profit Staples should make in a given year? If, conversly, Staples does poorly in a given year, will Obama suggest sending it money?
If Obamacare imposes extra costs on Staples, who is Obama to suggest that Staples should not use standard business acumen to determine an appropriate pricing policy and an appropriate staffing policy?
Does Obama really think he is God?
Not God… Allah.
Aren’t the chickens coming home to roost now? When this law was passed in 2010, I believe the predictions were that businesses would cut hours, cut employees because of the massive expense they would have. Looks like it is living up to the predictions of the biggest job killer in history.
Can you see what my frustration is? this comment has nothing to do with anything but revealing FFA’s jaundiced, if not prejudiced, views..
I understand…but your point is meaningless because a few people here will misconstrue what you said, read a deeper meaning into your post than what you actually wrote, and then insult you (1) for having your own opinion and (2) for something you never said nor implied.
My sweeping generalizations over now – suffice it to say: I feel ya, Stush – I feel ya.
Actually, Staples is not providing all the facts:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/staples-threatens-to-fire
Other – I’m not sure which “camp” you’re in on this topic, because the news article, in my opinion, shows that Staples is doing what any responsible business is supposed to do. Tighten the belt (reduce expenses) if you want to maintain or increase profit.
The employees admitted that they would regularly finagle their hours above what was scheduled to earn more income. In my opinion, they are stealing from the company. They should be reprimanded.
Another question that is not answered in the article. Did these previous part time workers have health care provided before the mandatory Obamacare law? If not, they are no worse off than they were before (for healthcare reasons) and it proves that Obama and company were shortsighted when they rammed this down our throat. Because it cost the employees hours and income instead of providing them with healthcare.
Finally, the article also shows how the retail stores are not performing as well as the online sales. So their so-called excessive profits are not being generated by the employees in the stores. Staples might do better by just shutting all the stores down and become an online only operation.
How is it stealing if they put in the hours they clocked? Staples didn’t reprimand them, it paid them. Staples is only laying down the law now (pun intended) because the employer mandate is going into effect.
“The employees admitted that they would regularly finagle their hours ****above what was scheduled*** to earn more income.” (emphasis added)
I don’t want to put words in people’s mouths, but I think his ‘stealing’ comment was because the employees were documenting they worked more hours than they really did.
No – if an employee is only suppose to work their scheduled hours, and they work more than that anyway because they know they will be paid for it anyway, they are stealing from the company. Yes, they might have actually “worked” those hours, but if they were not needed to be there, it was a waste of the companies money.
Thanks for clarifying IM. I was wrong about what you were trying to say and that’s exactly why I wrote that I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth!
No problem. Thanks for your note.
Staples is required to pay them, by law, if they worked the hours. They are stealing by working more hours than they are authorized to do so.
The same applies to overtime. For example, if a person is only supposed to work 40 hours per week, but they work 50 hours instead even though they were not authorized by the wmployer to do so, the employer is required to pay them time and a half.
The employer not only pays the employee, but they also have to pay the employment taxes, too.
Staples is not laying down the law, they are reigning in their costs, with or without Obamacare. Maybe they were too nice before and didn’t say anything because they felt bad for the employers. Whatever the reason, the added cost (payroll) was not budgeted for those extra hours.
No, they didn’t do it because they were “nice.” They did it because they obviously had a need for those employees to be there. Otherwise there would have been progressive discipline and they would have been terminated. They are “reigning in costs” now ONLY because the employer mandate is kicking in. That’s the only reason. And that makes them “skirting” the law. It’s legal, but certainly not moral.
Wow, Libby, I didn’t realize that you sat on the Staples board and was part of their HR department and also sat on their finance committee.
You sure are busy!
Sorry, Integrity, it doesn’t take a genius to know how all these big corporations operate. I’ve worked for enough of them. Just because you’re off it your never-never land where corporations are “nice” and Obama is an evil Muslim, doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t right here living in reality.
Libby – fact check – I know about the big bad corporations. I’ve been laid off twice by them just so they can get their stock price up. It pissed me off.
That said, it is still their right to do so. I’m not going to play the victim because the world does not owe me anything and I am okay with that.
I work for what I get.
Good for you, Integrity. I’ve already said they were within their legal rights to do so, so I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to continue to bring that up. I’m not debating that. I’m saying it’s not the RIGHT thing to do.
Libby – I keep bringing it up because it is their choice. It is your opinion about whether it is RIGHT or WRONG.
I think it is WRONG to kill babies during pregnancy. You think it is the mothers CHOICE, to do so.
I think killing babies is worse than not providing healthcare. Especially if the healthcare REQUIRES an employer to pay for the killing of the babies.
But you are okay with this and that is your opinion. I’ll pray that you and others will somehow be enlightened that killing babies is more WRONG than not providing healthcare.
I DO NOT think it is OK to kill babies. I think it is OK to decide not to take a pregnancy to term and abort a fetus. Big difference. But it’s science, so I don’t expect you to understand.
You want to bring all these unwanted children into the world and then not provide the basic necessities for them like healthcare. I’m not surprised you don’t see the hypocrisy in your position.
Libby – It’s not science, it’s an excuse. A fetus is a baby. Society uses the term fetus to desensitize the issue to mitigate the guilt.
If it was just a fetus and not a baby, why do people who kill a pregnant mother get charged with 2 counts of murder? I guess its a baby then because it was not the mothers choice. Tell me about hypocrisy.
I would be more than happy to provide healthcare for the unwanted babies. That is a no brainer.
You’re so against the big bad corporations, how about the hypocrisy of the abortion industry. Billion dollar industry for abortion on demand. How about the govt promote abstinence instead of handing out condoms? Instead they make it easy to have sex and an abortion.
That is like giving an alcoholic a case of beer and saying “if you have to drink, use this instead of whiskey”. Maybe if society wasn’t so accepting of abortion, there would be less unwanted babies?
Integrity, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I will never see it your way and you will never see it mine.
You’re right Libby. It is sad that you and many others think a pregnancy is simply a science project that can be ended.
It’s sad that you can’t accept that it’s each woman’s choice to make based on their particular circumstances and feel you have a need to judge others.
I’m just going to butt in here. This is just my observation, I have not studied the topic in depth. I have only seen employees work more than their scheduled shift when the store needs them because someone didn’t come to work or the demand for employees was not budgeted correctly.
I do not think these employees are “stealing” anything. For most employers, it is cheaper to give part time employees more hours than to hire additional part time employees. Now that the employer mandate has gone into effect, that is no longer the case and those stores that have cyclical demand or employees who skip their shifts will make different staffing decisions.
Well said, KY.
Scientifically speaking, when does the child get a choice?
Libby – you make the judgment that it is morally wrong for businesses to not provide healthcare, which is their choice.
I simply made the comparison that I think it is more morally wrong to choose to kill a baby than it is choose to not provide healthcare.
Both decisions are based on the individuals (or corporations) circumstances, merely justified by what they deem to be right or wrong in their own eyes. These decisions can be selfishly based or not.
The point is they both have the right to choose what is best for them. My opinion is that one is worse than the other. It seems you have a different opinion on which one is worse.
“Libby – you make the judgment that it is morally wrong for businesses to not provide healthcare, which is their choice.”
No, I didn’t. I made the judgment that it was wrong for STAPLES to cut hours only for the purpose of avoiding paying health insurance benefits. They were happy to have those employees working those hours and didn’t mind the extra payroll, payroll tax, or unemployment taxes they paid (and still made $610M profit). They only cut back hours when they were faced with offering health insurance benefits to those same workers.
I never said all employers have a moral obligation to provide health insurance. You made that assumption.
Libby – Allowing additional hours when unauthorized and cutting hours is drastically different.
Staples did not “cut” hours. Those hours were not authorized (officially scheduled). In the article, “Alice” was not scheduled to work 40 hours, she was scheduled for 25.
Even if she was asked to work (authorized) the additional hours, Staples still has the perogative to discontinue that, regardless of the reason. The law changed and is going to cost the company more money under certain conditions.
Every responsible business will analyze those conditions and make decisions that are best for the company and stockholders.
There is nothing moral or immoral about it.
Their decision could have been to accept the changes and anticipate the additional expense, which might have prompted widespread layoffs.
They would have then been blamed for laying off people due to Obamacare.
Integrity – I guess you missed this post:
“Libby says: I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA.
See? I can admit when I’m wrong.”
Funny how those kinds of posts are always the ones that get missed/ignored.
Actually, I saw that in the other post and thanked you for it. I guess you missed that.
integrity matters,
Actually, responsible businesses are suppose to increase revenue in order to maintain or increase profit. If all you do is reduce expenses, you will not have a business very long.
If the employees were actually working, they weren’t stealing. You righties always say that if you want to make more money, you should work harder. It sounds like that is what those employees were doing.
I would have more sympathy for Staples if they didn’t average over $600 million in PROFIT the past 5 years.
Ron, responsible businesses are supposed to do a variety of things to increase profits, including manage and reduce expenses.
Quick question for you, if a salaried employee spends half the day on the internet, are they stealing from their employer? Same principle, but in reverse.
If a Staples store manager determines that they only need 3 people to work a shift, and a 4th employee decides to hang out and “help out”, how is that not taking money that is not theirs to take?
Definition of steal is: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.
It’s kind of like a “little white lie”. Not a big deal to most people, but it is still a LIE. This is still stealing.
It’s not stealing or Staples would have fired them. End of story. They paid them and their payroll and unemployment taxes and still made $600M profit. Offering them a health insurance plan in which they would have to pay a portion of the premium would not in any way break them. Yes, their CEO may have to take a few million less in his paycheck. Boo hoo. Sorry, not sorry.
integrity matters,
It is only stealing if the salaried employee is not performing the tasks for which he/she was hired. If the employer does not feel he/she is getting their money’s worth or the most out of the employee, that is on them.
So if an employee does the same thing at another company, is it stealing or not?? Are you basically saying that since they didn’t get caught, it is okay.
That is the problem with the left today…the world owes me everything and if I take it and get caught, it’s not my fault.
How do you define stealing, Libby?
Stealing = taking something that doesn’t belong to you. That was easy. Got another?
It’s not stealing if you are being paid a salary to do a job. In fact, that’s the definition of a salaried individual. If you’re referring to me, my employer and I have an agreement. I’m here in case I’m needed and I perform all the job functions expected of me. If I have down time, I am still expected to be here if I am needed. If I can not find busy work, I am free to be on the internet. Now. I know you really want to call me a thief, but I’m afraid it’s just not true. In fact, I’d rather be busy with real work as it makes the day go by faster. That’s why I have assisted every single person in my department, even filling in for each of them when they are sick or on vacation. Do you do that???
I/M says “So if an employee does the same thing at another company, is it stealing or not?? Are you basically saying that since they didn’t get caught, it is okay”
Now your getting the jist of Illinois Politics… It only took 6 years for you to understand that.
Libby – you said – Stealing = taking something that doesn’t belong to you.
So the employee “taking money” for hours they were not authorized to work is not stealing? How do you figure that?
Regarding your work question, I am salaried and the expected work week is 37.5 hours. I work 45-50 hours every week. Yes, I do that and then some.
FFA – No – I knew Ill. Politics and most politicians operate and think that way.
I was just trying to get Libby to admit how ridiculous her statement was. A futile attempt, I know, but, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.
Maybe Libby is the “nut” trying to find the blind squirrel?
Integrity – being paid for hours you worked is not stealing, I don’t care how much you want to spin it. If Staples didn’t want them working those hours, the managers should have enforced the policy in 2014. THEY DID NOT.
You can not fault the employee for working extra hours with no argument from their employer. They are working for what they got. They’re not stealing it. Get your head out of your rear-end. You may not be a squirrel, but you sure are blind.
Libby – Just because they were not reprimanded for it in 2014 doesn’t make it right. Nor does it set a precedent that Staples has to continue looking the other way.
It’s called integrity, on the employees part, and it matters! You are the one who is blind to what really transpired. Now that they are crqacking down on the abuse of working more hours, it it Staples fault??? Get real.
That you think these employees were somehow “pulling one over” on Staples is ludicrous. The managers had to have known they were putting in the hours and they approved it or it would not have continued. You people on the right slay me. You condemn people for not working and turn around and condemn them for working too much! Are you ever satisfied with anything???
That’s not the point, Libby. The point is that Staples is cracking down now and enforcing the policy, regardless of the reason.
You, Obama and the “poor” workers purposely abusing the policy are trying to blame it on them because of the Obamacare loophole.
I am not condemning anyone for working. I am calling them out when they complain about someone holding them accountable when they break the rules.
Drug dealers work hard, too. I guess I should be happy that they are working and not care that they are breaking the law.
Your (liberals) “ends justifies the means” mentality is one of the things that is wrong with society today. There is no real integrity in your thinking.
“That’s not the point, Libby. The point is that Staples is cracking down now and enforcing the policy, regardless of the reason.” No. That’s not the point. You said the employees were stealing. That’s the point I was refuting.
“You, Obama and the “poor” workers purposely abusing the policy are trying to blame it on them because of the Obamacare loophole.” Huh? How are Obama and I abusing the policy and just what Obama loophole are you referring to? That sentence doesn’t even make any sense.
“I am not condemning anyone for working. I am calling them out when they complain about someone holding them accountable when they break the rules.” Nobody is complaining because they are being held accountable for breaking the rules. I’m complaining because the “rule” was not enforced until it meant additional dollars out of Staples pocket. They were perfectly happy with the hours their employees were working before. They just don’t want to have to give them health insurance. And I say “shame on them” for that. (Oh yes I did!)
“Drug dealers work hard, too. I guess I should be happy that they are working and not care that they are breaking the law.” That’s just a stupid statement. Enough said.
“Your (liberals) “ends justifies the means” mentality is one of the things that is wrong with society today. There is no real integrity in your thinking.” Just where do you get that idea? Nothing I said was in justification of any means to get to an end. If you need me to explain my position AGAIN, please let me know. Otherwise, you’re way far off the mark with that comment.
Integrity, you are absolutely right, it is a form of stealing. Our department has a budget. The department manager has to keep department expenses within that budget. If she doesn’t do that, she gets in trouble with HER higher-ups. Overtime comes out of the budget. That’s why SHE has to be the one to AUTHORIZE the overtime. If all the employees under her just decided to work numerous hours of OT without her permission, and she then HAS to pay us for it, that throws the budget out of whack. And gets HER in trouble for not properly managing the working hours of her people. We’re good employees for putting in the hours and being willing to do so, but we’re NOT good employees for doing it WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. THAT is where the “stealing” comes in. She doesn’t want to fire us because we’re otherwise good employees, but she can’t just let us call the shots, either; that’s HER job. So maybe she doesn’t fire us, but reprimands us for doing something without her permission. You and I understand this, but I don’t see why others can’t understand it.
Because, Connie, they weren’t “reprimanded.” If their managers had an issue with it (for budgetary or other reasons) it was their responsibility to address it and stop it. They did neither. Therefore, they gave implicit consent for the employees to work those hours. There was no stealing going on. Get over yourselves you judgemental Dudley Do-Rights.
Has anyone here ever worked retail?
The retail employees I know get sent home if they are not needed. The shift supervisor or manager tells them to leave. They have to clock out – there is no “hanging around to help out” if they were not specifically asked to stay later.
This is also true in hospitals and other service industries. If additional staff is needed (the supervisor or manager makes this decision) THEN employees are asked to work additional over shift or employees are called in to cover the need.
I cannot imagine anyone attempting to stay on the clock for more hours can sneak that past their supervisor or manager. Retail is a delicate balance. I have yet to meet a shift supervisor/manager who doesn’t know exactly how many people are working at any given moment.
Thank you, Connie.
Libby –
Point# 1 – Obama, you and the workers are blaming the action taken by Staples (cracking down on part timers working more than the authorized hours) and alleging they are doing it to not have to provide healthcare coverage.
Point# 2 – These part time workers never had healthcare to begin with and if they followed the rules by only working their 25 hours, they still would not be eligible. Therefore, Staples is not taking anything away from them and they are not breaking the law and they are not trying to avoid the law. Do you get it, yet??
Point# 3 – The workers ARE stealing from them by taking money for hours they worked but were unauthorized for. Staples reasons for not cracking down harder last year have nothing to do with their decisions this year. You are trying to justify the theft by them merely trying to support their families.
Point# 4 – Regarding the drug dealers comment – trying to support one’s family is no justification for breaking the rules or the law.
Point# 5 – You’re refuting that they were not stealing. By your own definition, they took something that was not theirs to take. How is that not stealing?
Integrity:
Point #1 – Staples is “cracking down” on hours now MOST CERTAINLY to avoid having to pay health insurance benefits. Which they are entitled to do by law, but if integrity really matters, they are morally wrong to do so.
Point #2 – Staples is taking away the extra hours they were previously happy to pay these workers AND not giving them healthcare benefits.
Point #3 – Not stealing. See KY’s comment. There is no way management did not know and approve of these employees working extra hours.
Point #4 – The drug dealer comment was completely stupid. How can you even try to compare the two?
Point #5 – The were not taking anything that wasn’t explicitly or implicitly given to them.
You need to wipe the indignation off of your face and admit if integrity REALLY matters, Staples is morally wrong for cutting hours only in an attempt to avoid paying benefits.
KYjw – Yes, I have worked retail and my wife was a retail manager for many years. Your statements are very true and any shift supervisor or manager worth their weight SHOULD know who is suppose to be on or not.
That said, depending upon the store chain, “clocking” in and out may be local where the manager sees and approves the timecards or it can be centralized. The local manager may still be responsible for approving. Even if they are, they are not there 100% of the time and must rely on the shift supervisor to “police” the employees to leave on time.
Have you been in these stores lately? They are operating with skeleton crews many of the times and the supervisors are too busy to police anyone.
Additionally, I also know that employees will work together to “clock in or out” for each other just so they can get extra time. I’ve witnessed it.
Libby – you are a hypocrit. You are accusing Staples of being morally wrong for doing what is best for them. Maybe if you considered that they were scientifically terminating a situation that does not work for them any more, you would be accepting of their personal choice and decision.
Since you, as a man, are incapable of being faced with an unwanted pregnancy I think it’s hypocritical for you to even comment on the topic of abortion. I’m not here advocating for or against it. I’m advocating for a woman’s right to choose what is right for her and her body, life, soul. It is not yours. And certainly not ANY mans.
I think Staples cutting hours to avoid the law is reprehensible. You want to get all cute about equating that to abortion, which is disingenuous and dishonest. The two should not even be mentioned together in the same post.
I understand that it is a womans body. But there was a man that participated in creating that child. The child is partly his, but he has no say in the matter. That’s the law and we have to live with it.
I think it is reprehensible that you can put an “immoral” label on something like healthcare and be condemning when there are more serious issues that are morally questionable and that you actually support.
It is entirely possible for an employee to work OT and the supervisor doesn’t know it’s happening until after the fact. Where I work, the employees work out of two different buildings, a mile apart. Our supervisor, crazy as this sounds, is in one building, and our department is in the other building. And we don’t have timecards. We’re on the honor system. So we could very easily work multiple hours OT and she wouldn’t know it until we put in for it AFTER the fact. She’s not sitting here where she can see someone coming in early and say, “What are you doing here? You’re not supposed to be here for another hour yet.” The reverse also happens – people come in 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes late, and nobody knows they’re tardy because we have no time cards and the supervisor isn’t there to see who’s coming in when. This isn’t because they got stuck in traffic, or had an emergency; it’s routine with them because with no timecards and the supervisor not being on-site, they know they won’t get caught. So those people are stealing time. So yes, there are situations where these things can happen.
Whatever, Integrity. I guess you are not willing to agree to disagree on the matter. That’s your perogative. But better be sure to check your own house thoroughly before throwing stones at mine. I’m comfortable with my morals and choices, so you can stop all your pontificating now.
It’s no worse than when the rich crooks take turns giving each other 200% raises that they in no way earned and were not authorized by the owners of the company (the stockholders). That is stealing. That’s how the rich get their money, by stealing from the rest of us.
Who approves their timesheets? If unauthorized overtime is an issue for your company then your supervisor should be fired. And if tardiness is an issue for your company then your supervisor should be fired. Otherwise, they are complicit in the overtime &/or tardiness and have no reason to balk. Why don’t you spend more time worrying about your own time instead of everyone elses?
Further, apparently Obamacare provides: “Reuters has reported that some businesses are keeping staffing numbers below 50 or cutting the work week to less than 30 hours to avoid providing employee health insurance.”
Why doesn’t Obama just come out with a presidential edict that Obamacare shall apply to all employees, not just ones working 30 hours or more, or for employers with 50 or more employees? Unconstitutional you say? Just Google to see how many times in the last few years Obama has made “pronouncements” completely contradicting express provisions of the ACA.
How is this different? Obama knows he cannot be impeached, which is the sole remedy for a lawbreaking president. So why not?
How is it that the president can’t be impeached? I didn’t know that. I thought that was the remedy for high crimes and misdeameanors….being impeached is the process not the result, and it is available to congress any time they want to do it.
I guess having never run a business, Obama doesn’t realize that these regulations increase cost of operating as do ALL regulations. These idiots “good ideas” are almost never a good idea but that won’t stop them from running their mouths and passing more ignorant and destructive laws at the direction of their donors.
According to Staples last annual statement, they have 46,361 full time employees. If they were to offer full time employment to the other 38,639 part time employees, most of the income they earned over the last year would go poof. Even offering healthcare to a fraction of these part time workers would material affect earnings. I’m sympathetic to the workers, but companies like Staples are surviving on the margin.
Are you trying to make us believe that providing health insurance for 38,639 part-time workers would cost $620 million dollars? That would be $16k PER EMPLOYEE. You need to go back to the calculator and figure that one out again, pal.
Interesting that you expect Staples to be 3x more efficient than the Federal Government.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2927348/Obamacare-program-costs-50-000-American-gets-health-insurance-says-bombshell-budget-report.html
Hey Libby, I think you are the one that needs to go back not only to the calculator but also take some business courses. $16,000 per year PER EMPLOYEE is not that uncommon for companies to pay. After you sum up the costs for health insurance, vision, dental, life, disability, 401k, etc. Plus all the additional taxes and administrative expenses. Yes, the $620 million would go poof.
Carlos,
Libby only mentioned health insurance costs. If you need to add vision, dental, life, disability, 401k, etc. to get to $16,000 you are being disingenuous.
Ron – The reality is that those costs, especially the social security and unemployment taxes that the employer is responsible for would go up too.
If you don’t consider those, you would be foolish from a business perspective.
By the way, my employer pays closer to $20K for benefits, per person.
Well, they were happy to pay it before the mandate went into effect. That’s why they let people work 40 hours and gladly paid them for it. And still made $610M profit. Your arguments don’t hold water.
integrity matters,
My point was that Libby only referenced health insurance and Carlos added the costs of other benefits. Do you disagree?
Ron – I don’t disagree with your point. But, you cannot forget there are other costs involved, too. Do you agree with my point?
Libby – You cannot say they were happy to pay it before, nor can I say they were unhappy to pay it, because neither of us work for them. Maybe, it tool the impact of Obamacare for them to see why there was leakage in their payroll budget?
Whatever the reason, they have the right to run their business the way they want to, as long as it is within the parameters of the law.
Yes, they are within the parameters of the law. Within moral parameters? I think not. My original statement stands. They paid it before. “Offering” a health plan in which the employees contribute to the premium would not break them. If the employee chooses not to participate in the health insurance plan offered, that is their right to choose. Giving them no choice is wrong, morally. My opinion. I’m entitled to it.
integrity matters,
I agree with your point regarding the additional costs to the employer.
The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.
Libby – they were part time before Obamacare and didn’t have coverage. Staples didn’t take anything away. They are just making sure they are staying within the law.
So now you are trying to say that Staples should automatically give them all at least 30 hours so they can have healthcare? You are ridiculous.
You are right. Opinions are like A**holes. Everyone has one and some are bigger and smell more than others. Thanks (not) for sharing yours.
“The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.”
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuup.
Although you left out getting insulted too :D
Integrity – many of these employees were clocking full time hours before the employer mandate. That’s my f’n problem. Yours is a lack of reading comprehension. Now Staples is cutting those hours AND not giving them health benefits. You think that’s hunky dory and I don’t. I think you’re the one with the smelly opinion, not me. And it stinks to high heaven.
“The problem I have with most people who disagree with me and/or my posts is that they do not understand my position, take my posts out of context, make irrational assumptions about me and my ideals, totally disregard parts of my posts, ignore my questions or respond with some irrelevant spin, or ask me questions without answering mine first.”
It’s the lack of reading comprehension on the part of many on here. Funny, I don’t seem to have that problem with the ones that actually follow what I’m saying.
Libby – did you read the buzzfeed article? Check your comprehension.
“Alice” was “clocking” between 25-40 hours per week as a part time worker. (Part time workers don’t work 40 hours. Also, it does not say she was scheduled for 40 hours). “Alice also admits that she knew it was wrong because she says “it was a slap on the wrist” if they went over 25 hours.
So basically, she was okay with the slap on the wrist for breaking the rules, but now it is Staples fault that she might lose her job for breaking the rules.
Can you not COMPREHEND that she was purposely breaking the rules (aka stealing), taking something that did not belong to her?
You leftists always want to support the excuse of the “victim”.
So Libby, in our 5 years of debate on this so called law, do you remember criticizing me and other Conservatives who had objections to Obamacare and practically screaming that the law hadn’t even been implemented yet so what were we bitching about? This article is all about the employer mandate and the start of the implementation and the headaches for businesses. Then you criticize Staples for not just absorbing all the costs the mandates have visited upon them. When did you get radicalized and so anti-business like your President?
integrity matters,
the girl was clocking the hours because the manager allowed it. The manager probably needed someone to work the hours and because needs the money, she took the hours offered. Just because someone is scheduled to work doesn’t mean they’ll show up. Also, sometimes staffing models are not good at predicting demand for clerks and managers have to call in more people. (Ever been to a grocery store when only 2 lanes are open and the lines are going back through the isles?)
It is not stealing if the person going over their regularly scheduled hours is needed in the store.
**and because she needs the money**
Dang I wish we could edit posts.
KYjw – I appreciate your comments. The article does not explicit say she was authorized for the extra time. I agree that authorized extra time and willingness to work is good and okay. Stuff like that happens and it has happened to me in the past (asked to work over because someone did not show up).
The person in the article admitted to getting her wrist slapped for the extra hours, which implies it was unauthorized.
The problem I have with Libby, is that she thinks Staples should continue to allow these people to have the extra hours. It is their business and they can do whatever they want, regardless of their motives.
She thinks it is immoral to do so. I think there are many more things that take place in this world that are a lot worse, but it is accepted by society.
I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA.
See? I can admit when I’m wrong.
Thank you, Libby. I appreciate your comment.
Libby, about $13,000 for a hubby & wife in IL, so not too far off.
FFA,
However, if you multiply that $3,000 difference times 38,639 empolyees, the total difference is cost is $115,917,000. Sounds like a pretty significant difference.
Ron, my figures don’t include dependents nor did it include Dental, Vision, Disability or hearing.
I have a two man group. One family unit is $3000. Hubby, Wife 3 kids. Late 30’s all kids under 10. May I add this is my last remaining group. I am sure the owner is kicking it to the curb next year.
We can debate this all day long.
Until the real number is crunched business by business, we will never know the true number.
Certainly a company as big as Staples can get a better group rate than that, FFA. A two-man group isn’t really much of group, now is it? I know my employer pays about $350 of my monthly premium and I pay $80. It has a $3,000 deductible, which I am responsible for. Not the richest plan out there, but I have coverage and some skin in the game. And it’s not bankrupting my employer.
Libby, I cant comment on what I don’t know. I don’t know any health but IL. I know my Medical Out of pocket – including premiums was dancing around $30,ooo last year.
80% of all business are small employers. Staples in the 20% range.
FFA,
You said, “I cant comment on what I don’t know.” That is Agent’s job.
Whose margin is slimmer? Staples or their part time employees trying to pay for a health claim? Just asking.
“Whose margin is slimmer? Staples or their part time employees” Then the part time employee shouldn’t work at staples. Maybe the part time employee should have gone to school, studied hard or even learned a skill so that their employer would value him/her enough to provide insurance. Instead of people like you wanting to mandate the benefits of Staples, how about donating 50% of your income to better other people’s lives. Then if all the generous people like you do this (I say this sarcastically), the world will be a much better place.
Shame on Staples! And shame on you, AA, for not doing your own fact-checking before slamming Obama. Again.
Shame on Obama for trying to tell private business how to run their business. He has no business experience. He jammed this cost down everyone throats and increased the cost to everyone. If not today, then wait for tomorrow.
FFA, What Obama offered was not a solution, but a separatism. He fomented division and strife, pitted one set of Americans against each other for his own political benefit. That is what Socialists offer. Marxist class warfare wrapped up in a bow. Two Americas, coming closer each day to proving the truth of Lincoln’s maxim that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Lou Holtz.
Do you think Holtz is on the watch list yet and the IRS audit list?
Now now Libby… AA is from Il and on the news last night another IL politician headed to jail. Its just a natural reaction from us Flat Landers. Every Liar may be a politician and all politicians are liars.
True story… My Gr Son caught his mom in a lie, got upset with the lie and called her OBama.
FFA – Even the little league baseball team from Chicago cheated. They teach them well there and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
BTW-Great story about your grandson!
Once again this president mis-speaks. The large consulting firms all estimated that up to 60-65% of large employers may in fact drop employer sponsored health care all together. When commenting on mom-and-pop stores he said that it is one thing for those who can’t afford to pay minimum wage!-what world is he living in-mom and pops pay minimum wage!! His lack of knowledge is frightening. On the issue of providing health care for their part time employees-it could cut their profits by 30%. Group plans can easily run $3-400 per employee per month-multiply that times the annual premium and it could add up to $185,000,000!!! That does not account for the overhead and administrative cost.
All the more reason to provide universal healthcare so that Staples can eliminate all the costs of providing healthcare to its employees. It also has the benefit of letting Staples employees quit their jobs and go someplace else that pays more since they are no longer afraid of losing their health insurance.
I have to ask Stan, if we have ‘universal healthcare’ and it will eliminate Staple’s cost of providing healthcare, healthcare will still cost money so who, exactly, is going to pay for it?
The 1% bro. They have tons of cash. America gets healthcare and the 1% avoids having the 99% burn their houses to the ground out of fury.
Everybody wins.
Stan per Face the Nation a few months back, over 50%of the people in Congress are millionaires. TY99u really think they will cut their own throats or do you think they are just greedy pieces of crap?
I think the inability of congress to pass meaningful healthcare reform has less to do with their own personal wealth and more to do with their interest in retaining their congressional seat.
FFA, are you against term limits? Serious question.
FFA, per Lou Holtz,
The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you. Vote Democrat! That is the philosophy that produced Detroit.
Stan, I am all for term limits. These life time guys pushing their agendas to fatten their pocket need to go. I don’t have to look too far to see what Life Timers have done to this state.
My point was that some of the very people you look to pay for Universal Health Care are the same to pass the law.
I agree that the people passing the law would be affected, but many democrats are also millionaires and you could get universal coverage passed with enough dems.
And I am glad we agree on term limits. Too often people act in the interest of securing their seat rather than their constituents.
Agent, are you against term limits? Do you need me to spell out what they are before you opine?
Stan… Lifers in Springfield and in Chicago have ruined this state. One of Rauners big campaign promises was Term Limits. Many people voted for him for that very reason. He is gonna have a hard time with the likes of Michael Madigan being one of them, but I do believe that is one promise he intends on keeping.
I believe Rauner is going to follow Walkers Blue Print in WI. He is already yapping against unions saying if people don’t want to be in the union, they should not be forced to as a condition of employment.
Its going to get nasty fast… There has already been an anti union movement going very slowly. McCormaick Place (all but a ghost town these day as many national conventions have relocated), The Chicago Trib, the Sun times. The list is getting longer…
In other words,
Give us the money you earned, or we burn your house to the ground.
Got it.
Also: The 1% are called that for a reason. Even if they averaged income 100 times more than the middle class, if you took 100 dollars from them, you could give 1 dollar to each American. Do you see the math there, or don’t you?
No matter how much you tax the rich, you won’t get very far into helping the poor, but you may very well make it harder on them. The 1% includes people making not much over $150k a year. These same people have businesses which are 10-20 people. This is where 97% of businesses are, and this is where easily half of all the 1%’ers are at.
So making $150k, they must pay for the life of all people making $35k right? That isn’t moral Stan.
I just showed someone math that shows someone with 3 kids, with Obama’s new credit, and with subsidies for healthcare, and housing assistance in WA state, and food stamps, and college aid, and electricity aid, could get the equiavelent of a single person after taxes (or checks from the government more than $0 in the case of the lower class person) would out earn their $70k single counterpart.
That isn’t moral.
Threatening to burn down houses because you don’t have a free life isn’t moral.
It also would never work. Robbing the rich wouldn’t even come close to providing for the poor. Revenues in businesses are not the profit in terms of dollars left over. You hear of the trillions of dollars of revenues firms have. Even firms like Dell, with a billion in revenues, results in that owner making a million a year. One one thousandth of the total revenue of the firm. If you tax the revenues, you will harm the people working for the firm, as there is only enough overhead for even the CEO to get a million a year.
There are only 9.63 million, millionaire’s in America, in net worth (not annual income, which is way under)
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/13/business/la-fi-mo-number-of-millionaires-in-us-reaches-a-new-high-20140313
My dad was one, and he didn’t earn as much as you think. He just saved and invested. Most these millionaires do not make millions a year.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
If you were going after the wealthy, which is the top 5% of the top 1%, you would not get much taxing them.
Sorry, Boob. The 1% arent better than us. They are luckier sure, but they arent inherently better or harder working. So many factors go into economic outcomes besides hard work.
I call you Stan, you will call me Bob. Not boob.
Also: Did you read the articles or not? Only 5% of the wealthiest 1% are 1 million in earnings a year. 8% are 500,000 to 999,000. Those are the only people that could possibly have not worked harder, though they have, and you just won’t admit it.
The rest of the 87% are under $250,000, and EVERY single person in that income range works longer hours, and harder than the average American.
That income range I know damn well how to get into, and you would too if you stopped trying to think the lower class were harder workers than the people in that 87% of the 1%. If the lower class were harder workers, THEY WOULD BE THERE Stan. I have hired people that will NEVER be in that 1%, yet our field opens the opportunity.
For small business agencies, you see this differential if you pay attention. Some brokers only want to work minimally and make $60k. Some dedicate their life, lose their time with kids, and build a business up to $250k.
You would be robbing 87% of those 1%’s hard earned money in the under $250k range. And if you targeted the 13% of the wealthiest 1%, you wouldn’t get enough money. That was my point. Math. The wealthy cannot pay for the lower class, which the MAJORITY of the lower class CHOOSES to not work hard. I am involved in the programs for the lower class to help them, as is my wife. She can barely get people to get out of drugs, alcohol, or to take care of their kids, let alone get in to a college and actually try, or a good job.
The 1% works harder than you, indefinitely. You label them because you want to justify stealing.
I was tempted to call you “Bob,” but after reading the content of your message, I’ll stick with Boob, Boob.
The 1% simply does not work “harder” than roofers, construction workers, chimney sweepers, miners, or any other physically demanding blue collar job. Do they do more sophisticated work? Maybe. But that isnt “harder.”
There are only 24 hours in a day and lots of people work hard. Far more than 1%. To allow so much wealth to accrue to so few at the expense of so many is criminal.
To think otherwise is to subscribe to Ayn Rand: fantasy.
Grow up you dumbass, these are peoples lives that we’re talking about. Let them see a doctor.
1: These people do get to see a doctor. What you mean is pay the according bill in full.
2: The content of my message does not make me a boob, and your pathetic opinion labeling me doesn’t make it ok to make a label on me.
3: I have worked lumber, dumb ass. And I will tell you it was not harder than what I do now. There is something easy about showing up to the chain, knowing how much you will be paid, and getting benefits of working there. I made $38k, even back then, and with the profit sharing I had quite a bit to work with when I left. The “blue collar” jobs are not harder, do not have longer hours, than $250k a year jobs.
4. Stop with the class warfare.
5. So disregard math because you have your panties in a bunch? All I see is some brat kid saying: But but, forget the math! My emotions say this!
You don’t even have a single relevant point!
The majority of the lower class who (leeches) off of subsidized healthcare, are NOT blue class. They are live off the government class. I have seen these numbers. They are people content to be in the jobs they are, not progressing, not going to college, not trying, and not taking the chances we gave them with our firm (paying them lucratively). These are people who used to work the blue collar field. I gave them chances, THEY FAILED.
I should put some further commentary here:
I had no support. None. I worked wherever I could get a job, and I worked my way up everywhere that I did.
And I got to where I needed to be. It wasn’t luck.
In your experience, do kids do better in families that provide them college, etc? Or do kids do better in families that more or less force them to learn the value of a dollar and do it on their own?
Why do you suddenly believe the opposite when it comes to the government?
You know darn well what your thoughts are there. Apply it to the “daddy” government.
Falling on one’s ass is exactly what triggers the growth process.
I have seen two hings common in those that do poorly:
They are carried.
They don’t take their failures personally (blame others, whether corporations or the government).
And I have seen people succeed, (myself included).
They all fell on their ass. Without exception.
They all took their failures devastatingly (personally, blamed themselves)
My question there is one of the REAL questions Stan, that you don’t ask yourself.
My father (while living) used to say something of me, this is over ten years ago so it is hard to be verbatim.
I told him I didn’t know how to get where I needed to go, that I kept on falling, and I had people relying on me despite my personal weakness in life.
He said:
You’re right. You aren’t like your siblings. You mess up, and then you ask the hard questions, and then I have seen you NEVER mess up again, and come back even stronger every time. I don’t know where you got this idea that you are weak, but you are not. You are the strongest of your siblings, and the most honest with yourself.
Now this points out a few things: You consider me to be arrogant. In person you would not. My background is rather humble.
But it also shows that I had a hardcore knock on the ass, over a decade ago. My father talked me through it, but I took care of the issue and came back. Now I am going to earn more this year than my father ever did. When he said that, I was the least paid of my siblings.
Falling down saved me. And if the government had propped me up, I never would have gone far.
Not long before he died, he reiterated it phrased more like:
I don’t know where you got this idea in your head that you are on such a lower level than you are. You are worth just as much as anyone else. Don’t let anyone tell you different.
A couple years before that, when I was moving toward ownership with the firm I work with, I told him I was intimidated, I didn’t have the know how of the owner.
He told me I had the makings of one, that was all that mattered, the rest was going to come in time. All these years later, I still don’t consider myself where I need to be. But I always question myself, not someone else.
I’ve served my country, worked hard, put myself through college, done excellent work for many years, yet I’m nowhere close to being in the 1%. That whole thing about hard work and education is a lie. No matter what you do, the rich keep us from geting anywhere in life, because they take too much salary for themselves (they do not provide 1,000 times the value that I provide). The top executives do not run the companies by themselves. It takes the work of everyone else.
Sorry Shirley, Boob here just demonstrated that since youre not in the 1%, you dont work that hard. Bummer.
You have chosen not to have an income in the range of the top 1%, which starts at roughly $100k.
My brother went to college for 2 years, he has an entry level job at $73,000.
Att has customer service reps, up to level IV, level IV gets $63,000.
Banking Financial jobs can easily get to $100k.
Insurance jobs can easily get to $100k.
What I am saying is that the majority of blue collar jobs, have chosen to be low paying jobs. The average household income being at $50,000 roughly combined, shows a great deal of choice in staying in dead end jobs, if simple two year degree jobs get $73,000 per one earner. Two earners would be $146,000 at that point.
You made your choice, and your spouse.
Don’t blame it on others.
Hell, a customer service rep level IV family earner would be at $126,000 and be part of the top 1%, which would then expand to be obviously, not 1% any longer.
This proves that choice and being an idiot is the primary factor to not having above a $50,000 income. $100k is easy to obtain in two household earners. EASY.
“sorry Shirley, Boob here just demonstrated that since youre not in the 1%, you dont work that hard. Bummer.”
Spoken from someone who blames all his problems on someone else.
What is funny how you are sarcastic on this item. You are so clueless as to how to get ahead in life.
I should also note:
Studies show the majority of people in those blue collar jobs eventually move out of them, to the field like my brother’s (He didn’t move into it until he was almost 40).
Younger people take those jobs. Older people, it is a lot less common to be in such a low income bracket. Is that coincidence I wonder? That older people don’t make excuses and actually get into the higher paying jobs, while the younger people blame everyone else? (even in Stan’s case, he blames the older people).
Really,
My wive’s father was an accountant who made $60,000 in the 2000’s before he died.
That is more than a decade ago.
Of course wages have become crap since then, as my sister makes just over $60k as an accountant now, the point is that these are 2 year degrees.
Getting to a combined income over $100k is pretty easy, yet only 10% of the population does $90k or over. It shows the majority of people are just basically lazy, and this is why they don’t climb the ladder.
I have seen opportunities everywhere I have worked.
Boob, I think you’re confused about how labor markets work in the context of “chosen” salaries. Look at lawyers for example. Law schools have been graduating 50,000 new graduates each year, despite the fact that the market can only absorb 20,000 new jobs. This has depressed wages, putting the average salary in the $45-65k range. And this is for a highly educated, white collar workforce.
This prosperity gospel that you’re preaching is exactly that: a sermon. Nothing more.
There is a surplus of labor in this country that is depressing wages for all except the owners of capital. As such, redistributive policies – – such as universal healthcare – – should be enacted.
For a country of such shocking wealth to allow so many of her citizens to go without healthcare is treason of the highest order.
Your Boobish ranting about hard work, choice, and laziness cant hide it. Youre just not better than someone making less, nor are you worse than someone making more.
End. of. story.
Sounds to me like Stan and Shirley are both pissed off at the rich because they were either too lazy to work harder for what they thought they deserved, or too stupid. I’d say it’s a combination…perhaps if they weren’t so obsessed with other people working harder, working smarter, and getting further ahead in their lives than they did, they wouldn’t be so pissed off at the world.
Bob, it is a shame that the American Dream is fading from the scene. This country is full of stories that people had an idea/dream and worked hard to achieve success and once they make it in life, they are criticized by the underachievers, many of which are on this forum. The entitlement society this President has been pushing is that the government is the solution to all problems. Famous words – You didn’t build that. It is only government that creates success. Hello! Government is a hindrance, not a creator of success.
Bob – YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.
“Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income.”
A $100,000 income DOES NOT make you part of the 1%. You’re delusional.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/who-are-the-1-percenters/2011/10/06/gIQAn4JDQL_blog.html
The math doesn’t work stan.
Only ten percent of dual working families make $90,000.
Are you saying, that the market only has the capacity to give a single person $45,000 a year? Because you’re wrong.
The fact is that the other 90%, are split into a few groups. Some marry later, and so still fit into the $45,000 for now, but will get into the 10% later, but the majority, DO. Not. Try.
Libby,
The average 1% household does not make $500,000 Libby.
Read the links.
Also, keep in mind I combined two aspects. Assets, and earnings.
Those who are millionaires, which I gave a specific number, have an income average much lower than one would think.
Many only make $100,000 a year, AND saved and invested. This put them in the top 1%. They are in the numbers I included in the links.
The majority of the are under $1,000,000 in earnings. As my link showed, 8% make more.
We are talking 8% of 1% making a lot of money. You could never get enough from that 8% of 1% to fund the lower class, but the more you take from them, due to profit margins being $1,000,000 on a Billion dollar company, they would increase the cost of all of that billion of revenues to even get a marginal raise in income. It is math.
You would harm the poor more with higher taxes than you would with lower.
Also, of course, as I always say: The lower class wages won’t change. That bottom section of jobs in the sector will always be the rate of pay that it is. There is no cash flow to increase it. So those jobs, would be royally screwed by higher taxes, indefinitely.
bob – 90% of people DON’T TRY??? Really? Are you nuts? And since when is making $45,000 a BAD thing? That’s the AVERAGE wage in America, you turd! How dare you disparage hard-working people because of the amount of money they make. To answer your question, YES $45,000 is what the market bears. You need to look outside your own little bubble, which you rarely do, to understand the facts of life, pal.
bob – your methodology is flawed. You can’t include assets in determining federal taxes. You don’t pay federal tax on your assets. You pay federal tax on your income.
And yes, the AVERAGE 1% made in the $500k range of income.
A: I said that a good chunk of the 90% don’t try, and a good chunk will get there later.
B: It is EASILY safe to say that AT LEAST half of America does not try to get higher earnings and doesn’t deserve it.
C: I never said $45,000 was bad earnings, I said it was easy to make. So if only 10% of joint households make $90,000 combined, it shows people aren’t trying.
D: I have hired in excess of 15 people the last two years. 2 made it. The others were lazy.
E: I am not determining tax rates with the assets. I am showing demographics show that making it without these people being taxed more is an impossibility. Obama has determined that Millionaires can afford more tax. I’m showing he is a liar. Those with assets in a million should not be taxed more. Those with earnings are only 8%.
F: I am well aware of the average earnings in America being $45,000. I was not mocking the dollar amount. I was mocking the very fact, that most people don’t try, and that is why they make that wage. A customer service rep with ATT for 10 years can make $63,000. An accountant with a 2 year degree can make $60,000. A programmer with a 2 year degree can make $70,000. Apple recently said part of the problem is our people here do not have the college education to do what they need. We have people going to college naively, for ludicrous jobs, then they go make $12 an hour as a result of their error. You have to scout your job before you land the degree, and the fact is at least half of college graduates don’t do this. They educate first, think second.
G: How dare I talk about the issues that the majority of lazy people have?
Let me say it ten times:
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY
And it doesn’t make me bad for it. I come from a family of hard workers, and we are always surrounded by lazy bastards. My boss is the same way.
For every one determined person you have, they are surrounded by at least 20 deadbeats.
You know when you see the one person.
They take care of everyone’s things.
There is one in most families.
So for example:
I drive my mother all over in old age.
My dad did this for his dad.
I cleaned out my Aunt’s house with my dad, when she died, before he died.
We sorted the stuff out.
He paid for his Aunt’s expenses while she was down and out (still retired a millionaire due to good life choices, I don’t have respect for people who say they can’t do it, and he had a family of 8 kids)
I took care of one brother who lost a job for two years at the beginning of the recession. As in expenses paid.
When people move in my family, I am the one who does it.
I am the one they call.
These personality types, the “get crap done” types, are NOT the majority. It is insulting for YOU to try to say this would be more than half the population. The vast majority do not try.
Get over it.
I’ll add an additional one:
EVERY
SINGLE
CONSTANT
1% EARNER
IS
A
HARDER
WORKER
THAN
ANY
MIDDLE
CLASS
PERSON.
PERIOD.
If you want to get to that income, go ahead. Do it. Or lie and blame someone else. Millionaires are popping up self made more now than any other time in history. It is easier now, not harder. So go do it then, if it isn’t hard.
You can’t?
Then shut up!
bob-
A. A good chunk of the 90% “don’t try.” Really? Don’t try to do what? Make more money? There’s a bigger definition of success than how much money you make. To say they don’t “try” is insulting and arrogant. Much like you.
B. It is EASILY safe to say that AT LEAST half of America does not try to get higher earnings and doesn’t deserve it. See point A above. Just who do you think you are to decide who deserves what around here?
C. If $45,000 is the average wage, it is NOT easy to make. Many people work very hard and will never make $45,000. You’re an arrogant prick.
D. I have hired in excess of 15 people the last two years. 2 made it. The others were lazy. I would say that has more to do with your management style than it does about their work ethic. But being an arrogant prick usually makes for a bad boss. Just look at Agent.
E. I am not determining tax rates with the assets. Yes you were. You define millionaire for income tax purposes as someone with over $1M in assets and earnings. Disingenuous and dishonest form of debating.
F. You WERE mocking. ” customer service rep with ATT for 10 years can make $63,000. An accountant with a 2 year degree can make $60,000. A programmer with a 2 year degree can make $70,000.” Where? In Seattle? Maybe. Not in Podunk, IA, Mobile, AL, Jackson, MS or Central PA, pal. The world is bigger than just Seattle, WA. Open your eyes and learn a little about other people instead of spouting off like your little corner of the world is representative of everyone. What a putz.
F. MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT LAZY.
G. As for your litany of good deeds, mine is as long but probably longer since I have lived longer (alot longer) than you. I am the go-to person in my family. The one that solves all the problems, the executor, the fixer-upper, the whatever you want to call it. So what? That doesn’t make me better or harder working than the rest of my family. It only means I have the skills to do it.
Not everyone was born with a genius IQ like you purport to have (but fail to use on a regular basis). Not everyone has the luxury of a college education because they had to stay home and work to support their family. You HAVE NO IDEA of the struggle of normal, every day Americans. Now you just need to shut your pie hole about lazy people and get back to work, you turd.
that was a creative way to look at it.
Retail work is being turned into something it was not designed to do. Aside from management type positions, retail was often a stepping stone and not a career. Often these jobs were held by teenagers. Now, due to democratic policies, so many manufacturing jobs first left democratic strongholds such as cites, and now have left many other locations in the country. This displaced many people who would have had good careers elsewhere and forced them into retail which was not set up as a long-term career path for people.
As he so often does, Obama got the number wrong inferring that Staples made billions in profit.
Staples had to close several stores just last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/staples-results-idUSL3N0M334P20140306
Musing, while wondering why the President didn’t go after Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway) and their billions in profits or GE with their billions in profits. Could it be the Romney connection?
Go after? What are you talking about? Is Warren Buffet cutting hours in order to skirt the law?
Libby – do you think Warren Buffet is using every single tax law (aka loophole) to his advantage?
I guess it is okay for him to use the law to his advantage because he supports the liar in chief, but others are scum and heartless, when they do it.
integrity matters,
How about we get rid of all the corporate deductions/credits except those tied ditrectly to increasing jobs and/or wages for U.S. employees?
Ron-I’m all for a flat tax. I like the suggestion about incentivizing for increasing jobs and wages. Caution though, that could eventially have an adverse affect on inflation.
Integrity, Warren Buffet gave HALF (that’s right, half) of his fortune to charity to the tune of a whopping $37B. That’s BILLION. Show me where a Republican billionnaire has done anything close to that.
Libby – that is great. That is his choice and I sincerely applaud him for that.
I bet he claimed it on his taxes and saved more than you and I make combined. Just saying!
integrity matters,
How could that have an adverse affect on inflation?
Integrity – You criticize him for taking a tax credit on $37 Billion dollars that he GAVE AWAY to CHARITY???
Except to further their political agenda, the Koch Bros. have given a fraction of that amount to actual charity. Their net worth? Over $100B.
The hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds.
Libby – I was not criticizing about the tax credit, I am simply stating that he probably saved more than you and I made. I would have, too.
Logic tells me that he preferred to direct where he wanted his money to go (to charities of his choice) rather than getting taxed on it and giving it to the govt to squander.
RE: Koch bros. – don’t know, don’t care. It is there money and choice how they spend it or give it away.
That is what freedom is about. They will answer for whatever “good works” they choose to do (or not do). You liberals want the freedom to choose to kill babies. Conservatives want the freedom to spend their hard earned money the way they want to.
Killing babies is pure evil. Spending money can be good or bad. Just my opinion.
oops…meant to say “their” money.
Integrity, isn’t it interesting that the current problem of the Employer Mandate issues was put off until after the mid terms and Obama is free and clear until he leaves office. The landslide would have been even worse for Democrats who passed this law without reading it, had the Gruber scandal and now this new issue with business. I can see why they delayed the implementation as long as possible. Now, business has to deal with it just like we predicted it would.
Agent – I agree. Those that put this monstrosity in place were deceptive in what they told us, and the blind sheep were too stupid to not use logic to see what the outcome would be.
Ron – regarding your inflation question, there is a possible ripple effect. Lower deductions = lower net profit. Lower net profit may lead to increased costs of goods, resulting in increased inflation. I’m not saying this would happen, but that it could.
Agent – I also agree. If everyone would have just listened to the Democrats who pushed for universal healthcare during the Clinton admin, we wouldn’t be stuck with this Republican-created plan. Maybe our middle class would be better off, like the middle class in Canada.
It is not a republican created plan. Just about the only senator who did that was republican was Snow.
And universal government coverage is not good. It should be called “universal except for anyone but the government”.
Subsidies is fine, and leaving insurance in tact. Making it illegal to buy insurance is not a privileged. It is a restriction.
Only in America can democrats be so stupid, that they would call a restriction a liberty.
If you believe the government will be better, then let them handle people who want government care and leave the OPTION for insurance.
Or is it that you want to apply FORCE and establish a government control type of situation?
Also: Just a fact, considering our lifestyles we do have the longest life expectancy in the world. It is our healthcare system. It is the only thing it can be.
Who said anything about making buying insurance illegal? Nobody besides you.
“Also: Just a fact, considering our lifestyles we do have the longest life expectancy in the world.”
Bob – there are 35 countries in the world with a longer lifespan than we have here in the US. Next time, either do some research first or just don’t say “it’s a fact” the next time you aren’t actually posting facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Holy crap, Rosenblatt! I never thought to fact-check that little gem. And just note that ALL countries with universal healthcare have a higher life expectancy than the U.S.! So much for their healthcare sucking.
Thank you for going the extra mile on this. But I doubt bob will respond. He doesn’t usually once proven wrong…
I’m always skeptical when anyone on the internet says something is a fact without providing any evidence to support what they wrote.
That’s especially true on this site.
Although he may feel differently, I’m not singling out bob — I’d do the same to you or Stan or whomever else posted a “fact” that’s easily researched online and proved to be false.
I learned my lesson with that, but sometimes I make a mistake. When that happens, I will admit to it and apologize. Don’t see everyone doing that here, though.
100% agree Libby — there are only a few people here that have admitted when they were proved wrong. Just based on the comments in this article, you and I are definitely included in that group. I know there are others who have admitted their error too, but it’s definitely the minority of posters here who can admit their mistake.
I think it speaks volumes about a person’s character when they can be an adult and just admit their mistake(s) without obfuscating that fact in some way.
It is common for a HR person to include “Health insurance and other benefits” as part of the overall “compensation package.” In other words, when a new employee is being offered the job, they may discuss annual wages as one part of the “compensation package.” Hence, as the benefits change, so too will the “compensation package.” It seems odd to view health insurance as an employee benefit, part of the ‘compensation package’ but now the employee may suffer a loss. If employees will be asked to accept lower wages to help offset higher costs in health care, then Health Ins should stop being discusses as an employee benefit. Its an employee cost, not an employee benefit. Yes, I realize that the business owner will also have additional costs, so will the consumer… we all loose… goodie.
Producer #1 – If the employer is providing the healthcare coverage, they are paying the lion’s share of the cost. As such, it is a benefit.
In all likelihood the Staples part-timers did not recieve healthcare in the first place, so they did not lose anything (from a healthcare standpoint). They lost some hours, which was predicted.
Yes, they lost something. They lost a good portion of their income when they were busted down from 40 hours to 20. That’s HALF their pay and still no health insurance. It should have been criminal, but unfortunately it’s not.
Read the article, Libby and get your facts straight. They were not working 40 hours. These are the people that were working 28 hours a week and stretching it above 30 hours.
Read this article, Integrity. It was link included in the IJ article:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/staples-threatens-to-fire#.tmDvGoANZ
They were working up to 40 hours a week with no admonition from management.
Read the article…the admonition was a slap on the wrist. I guess since it was only a slap on the wrist, it made it okay.
Well, shame on Staples for not making themselves clearer with their message. I do not fault these employees for trying to make a living and support their families.
You’re incredible, Libby. You’re blaming Staples for the employees not following the rules. How much clearer can they say “don’t work more than 25 hours” be?
You don’t fault these people for trying to make a living and support their families. Me, neither. But there was a line that was crossed and you are trying to justify it. Please, admit this for once.
Would it be okay for them to rob a store to “support their families”?
Oh, quit being ridiculous, Integrity. Their managers did nothing to stop the extra hours. Therefore, they were complicit in allowing it. They’re all big girls and boys. If they didn’t want to pay the extra house they would have enforced the policy. An unenforced policy is the same as no policy at all. That’s just the way it is. Get off your moral high horse.
You know. Libby, you are right when you say “An unenforced policy is the same as no policy at all.”
It kind of reminds me of immigration. Obama has no enforcement policy (to the point of filing lawsuits against AZ that is trying to enforce the law), therefore, there is no immigration policy.
Didn’t he swear to uphold the laws of the Constitution? Was he lying then?
By the way, I am not up on a high horse. My morals are grounded in truth. It only looks like I am on a high horse from your perspective because your perspectives are below the dirt.
Wow! Try to be more judgmental, Integrity. You can’t. With “Christians” like you, who needs enemies?
And unless you expect Obama to get on a horse and patrol the border, border patrol is not his job. No more than it was Bush’s before him.
Libby – I want to apologize for the earlier comment about being on a high horse. It was overboard, and I am sorry.
Regarding the border patrol, it is his job to uphold the laws of the Constitution. The Dept of Justice reports directly to him. Holder and the rest of his minions are looking the other way and preventing others from upholding the law.
Since Obama is Holders “supervisor” he should hold him accountable or fire him. Instead, Obama instructs him to sue AZ to prevent them from upholding the law.
Your comment does not hold water.
Integrity – The Constitution makes protection of our borders the FEDERAL government’s responsibility, not the State government. Not to mention the fact that the detention of U.S. citizens until they prove their citizenship is un-Constitutional in and of itself. We are not required to carry papers proving our citizenship. Therefore, we could be detained indefinitely according to Arizona law. I don’t want to live in a police state. Do you?
A huge segment of the Shareholders in America are hardworking middle class folks who have 401Ks loaded-up with Staples and other similar US Corps. Corporate Profits fund an awful lot of jobs and retirements in this country.
Are you telling me that it’s fair to take money from those hard-working shareholders and give it to another hard-working American? Where’s the equity in that? What ever happened to earning your way?
Great point, Dave. The snowball effect, if Staples had to pay for all the extra healthcare, would mean lower profits. This would mean a lower share price and dividends, until eventually noone would want their stock anymore. Then Staples would end up like many of the other defunct retailers – out of business.
Oh yeah, then the 401k’s would suffer.
Only if they’re invested in Staples stock, which I think is a no-no since Enron.
And just exactly do you think your 401k is invested in? You don’t think that 401ks are primarily holding Mutual Funds of which most hold equities?
I know exactly what my 401k is invested in and it isn’t the stock of my employer. Enron did that and then cheated their employees out of all their retirement when it all went belly up due to their thievery.
Since then, I believe, it is a big no-no for company’s to force their employees to put their 401k into company stock. It can be offered as an option, but not the only option.
Have no fear, Obama is here, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”
knowall, per Lou Holtz,
“It is not inequality Barack Obama intends to take away, it is freedom. The freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. There is no true option for success if there is no true option for failure. The pursuit of happiness means a whole lot less when you face the punitive hand of government if your pursuit brings you more happiness than the other guy”.
Just for some perspective. Typical healthcare policies cost approximately 8-12K per year. Lets say it is on the low end. The cost for 38,000 additional employees would be 304,000,000. The company had a net profit of 620 mil in the last fiscal year, but lost 209 mil the previous year. Over 4 years they averaged 569 mil in net profit. The company had a 3% profit on sales and a 10% ROE. For such dismal returns, I don’t think the CEO should be making a tenth of what he is making, but if he was not paid, it would not make a dent. I would not be surprised if Staples and companies like that will not last another 10 years unless they figure out a way to reign in costs. I am also sure that most of these part time workers also make less than minimum wage and could not care less about their health benefits. If they increased their per hour wage by 5 per hour on these same 38K workers at 20 hours per week that’s another 200 mil. (yes that is coming, too).
GROUP health insurance policies don’t cost anywhere near $8-$12k per year per employee. Not to mention the employee bears some of the cost as well. You people and your “new” math are ridiculous.
In Illinois, Group has been more expensive then individual. Been that way for years way before the PPACA came to be. It happened due to HIPPA. Pre Hippa, people had the option of keeping what they had and converting it to an Individual Policy. HIPPA pushed COBRA on Employers when it already did exist with out putting the Burdon on the business.
HIPPA doesn’t have anything to do with COBRA and I certainly don’t see what that has to do with group rates. There is no reason group should be more than individual coverage, in Illinois or any other state. You have a bigger spread of risk. Maybe you just don’t insure large enough groups to see the benefit.
HIPPA brought the end of guaranteed conversion making COBRA necessary.
Exactly what Carriers said would happen to group did happen when they lost the ability to medically underwrite (HIPPA). Group became more expensive. I don’t know why. I have not seen the actuarial data. All I know is the hand I am dealt to sell. Group has been more expensive in IL for a long time then has been individual. Maybe its because Individual was medically underwritten and group was not. I just don’t know. I really don’t care why. I need the info to sell. That’s what I get. I don’t worry about things I cant control. I worry about putting it on the books. Of course, no point in even trying to go after group any more.
It is what it is. In a few short months, I’ll be able to comment on WI. I expect the insurance rates will be way less then what I see in IL. My Car insurance alone will be 30% less.
No. COBRA went into effect in 1985. HIPPA not until 1996. Even if you are guaranteed coversion of your health insurance, it didn’t guarantee conversion with the same premium. The carrier could jack up the premium. COBRA limits the amount the carrier can increase the premium, but you have to pay the whole thing instead of your prior employer contributing.
From what I’ve read, individual is cheaper because there is a larger pool of people sharing risk than in a defined group. Many groups are giving a benefits allowance to their employees allowing them to purchase individual health insurance on their own. I think that’s a good alternative.
Good luck with selling your house. I’m rooting for you! Any showings yet?
Why not pile a little more n me…. Inspector came by to give the final approval on the renovations. Passed.
He proceeds to tell me that the renovations on my office space forthcoming will make it next to impossible for me to stay here and function during the rehab project. So, looks like my office may be moving too.
Sign goes up on the 19th of Feb. Had some stragglers come through during the renovation, but nothing serious.
Realtor telling me about 60 – 90 days of market time. Last house in my neck of the woods at my price range went in three days.
Don’t you rent your office space?
Yes Libby. I rent the office. Its the same reason I had to move Aug, 2013. Building sold and extensive renovations were planned.
I was wondering why you’re making renovations on an office you’re renting. If I were you, I’d try to hang on until my house sold and say arrivaderci to both of them.
Maybe I can find a buyer for the agency and just be done in IL all together… Live off the sale price. Stick my hand out grabbing what ever I can from the govt.
FFA, Group rates have had terrible dependent rates for many years. If you have young men in a Group, the rates were good for them. Try adding a spouse and kids to it and see the eyes bugging out. A young man having premiums pulled out for his family coverage would not have much left over to pay his bills so he often opted out and got Individual coverage for the wife and kids so he could afford it. The lucky ones were the wife being covered at her work and him being covered under his work. If there were kids, they would have to decide which policy to put them under. Tough choice either way.
I wrote an off exchange policy on a single mom. The group rate for the Dependent was higher then the mom. Higher premium on the group for a 14 yr old girl then on a 41 yr old mom.
Do you know how often Moms drag their kids to the doctor for every cough or sniffle? Do you know how many kids break bones roughhousing or playing sports? Not to mention she’s about ready to begin puberty, which brings on a whole plethora of medical issues. A healthy 41 year-old Mom is a pretty safe bet for medical expenses.
yes Libby… I know. I am raising three kids one of which I had to pick up from school on Tuesday because he fell, hit his head and got a concussion.
We have a weekly appointment with a shrink (not for me).
My wife runs off to the doc with every sniffle.
I own a 3 person Insurance Agency(Me and 2 staffers). In order for my staff not to get a pay cut, I decided a couple of years ago to give them a raise to cover the fact that the payroll tax cut was not extended. Now my accountant tells me I can no longer provide pretax Health Insurance Benefits Reimbursements to my staffers because of ACA. Any such reimbursement must show up on their W-2 as wages. In order for them not to get a pay decrease, I have to now pay the extra payroll taxes myself. Looks like I’m the only one trying to look after my middle class employees and nobody is looking after the small employer!
What we have here is a President who just does not get it nor does he care. Rather than show true leadership, he using the Presidency at a platform for to push his radical views America and the world. He expects everyone else to have his same views or he views them as evil. Of course people are going to do what it takes to survive in the marketplace, including converting works to part-time to prevent from having to pay for something they cannot afford. This disturbs him and if he could, he would would want to control society as he had demonstrated, however he is being handcuffed by the law of the land and this frustrated him because he cannot be who he wants to be. I know this post is going to get some thumbs down, I truly wish I was wrong about the President, but if one really looks at the evidence, they will know I am right.
You’ve stated Obama has “abused” his Presidential power by pushing his agenda (ACA) through when people didn’t want it, but you also said he needs to to “abuse” his power more to pass laws that Congress does not pass (such as TRIA, before the new session started).
Sooooo is he REALLY handcuffed by the law, or can he do whatever he wants regardless of the law? Or both?
You are incorrect in saying the people didn’t want it. They most certainly DID want it. That’s why he was elected in the first place and re-elected in the second.
Libby, wrong again. He was elected the first time by appealing to low information voters like you with the slogan of Hope & Change. Actually, he said he would fix the economy and didn’t, but plunged right into Healthcare which is the most colossal mistake by a President & Liberal Congress in the nation’s history.
With the second election, the liberal media giving him a pass on everything and getting the economy into full entitlement mode and the loyal low information crowd, unions rigging the vote in battleground states and he managed to squeak it out because Romney wasn’t hard enough on him. By the way, as we have seen, Jonathon Gruber’s lies were not known until recently about this bogus bill or it never would have passed muster no matter how many lawmakers were bribed or intimidated by Pelosi & Reid.
Agent – since you didn’t vote for him, either time, you are not qualified to state why the people that did vote for him did so. It most certainly was for healthcare reform. It was also for Hope & Change, which INCLUDES healthcare reform. A refreshing change from the decades of do-nothing Republicans that do not want Americans to be healthy or have access to healthcare, but do want to take us into foreign wars over oil.
The only mistake Obama made is not pushing for universal care for this country and instead he pandered to the right in an effort to “compromise” by adopting a half-baked idea cooked up by the Heritage Foundation. Even that didn’t suit your side. You won’t be happy until the masses are all poor and sick so you can take advantage of them with your millions.
You make me sick.
I never stated such a thing, you need to reread what I wrote rather giving me your DNC prepared response.
It’s easy to get you mixed up with Agent. You have a very similar moniker. Agent HAS said those things.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I saw Obama coming from a mile away and you should have too. It was a very easy decision for me since I am not a wealth redistribution guy. Nothing has changed in 6 years. Lies, lies, more lies and his minions extending the lies. A law born on lies and passed in a totally partisan way is not a prescription for good law or government. You seem to forget the Blair House meeting a lot. Republicans offered their ideas and got brushed aside and told that he would do it their way and get on the back of the bus. This President has not compromised his agenda in any way. You are too old to follow this Progressive route like Stan, Ron & Rosenblatt. It really is sad and yes, you make me sick too.
Every President has pushed their own agenda. Just because his is one you don’t agree with doesn’t make him wanting it any worse than your guy. And yes, you were told to get in the back of the bus regarding healthcare reform because you had the last 8 years to do something and you did nothing. Why should you be allowed to steer the bus now? Sorry, sit down, buckle in, and shut up. That’s you place for now.
and I get dragged into this conversation that I’m not participating in…..why now?! Because I’m old? Guess my age, I bet you’re wrong (as usual)
…or guess how young I am. I still bet you’ll be wrong!
Nah, Rosenblatt. You’re not old. You’re young like Ron and Stan. I’m the old one he was referring to. And yes, Agent, I am old enough to know better than to vote for someone that is against my best interests. Too bad you’re not smart enough to figure that out yourself.
30’s.
Agent,
You said, “It was a very easy decision for me since I am not a wealth redistribution guy.”
LIAR, LIAR, LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is
Continuation:
Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!
My Guess Rose…
Old enough to know better but young enough to do it again…
“Increasing my taxes so yours can be reduced is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!”
Rosenblat, he just put words into Agent’s mouth. I don’t see your commentary. You asked me to show when it happened. It just did.
Agent never said he believes in wealth redistribution, and he never said he believes in increasing taxes on the middle class to fund wealthy tax breaks.
In fact, Agent believes that both can be done, and the middle class benefits from lower taxes on the wealthy.
So Ron just put his assumption of his beliefs, into what Agent believes.
I’ll just say it for you then, Rosenblatt:
Ron: DO NOT PUT WORDS INTO AGENT’S MOUTH.
That is agent’s job ;) as you recently mocked him on and said on a similar issue.
bob,
I did not put words into Agent’s mouth. Are you aware of his Fair Tax plan? He wants all working Americans to have “skin in the game”. That includes me and the rest of the 43% who, due to low income, tax credits and/or deductions, do not pay federal income tax. In addition, he wants to lower the taxes for the top 57%.
Please tell me how that is not wealth redistribution.
Since Agent was not capable, maybe you can tell the class:
If you force people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck to pay federal income tax, how will that help the economy? Remeber, this means more money to the government and less to the private sector. Will you lower the taxes for the top and force them to create jobs even if there is no demand?
bob – you’re not on IJ enough to follow the conversation, so I suggest you keep your assumptions to yourself. Agent did indeed tell Ron that ALL Americans, including the 47% that do not pay federal income tax, should pay something and that the “job creaters” (ie. the 1%) should get tax breaks.
That is most certainly a redistribution of wealth. It just happens to be taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
bob – In prior conversations, Ron asked Agent AT LEAST 5 times to explain how Agent’s tax plan was NOT a redistribution of wealth.
Agent kept replying, ignoring that question, and Ron kept pointing out how it was a redistribution of wealth and kept asking Agent if he disagreed, to explain how Ron was wrong.
If Agent did not want Ron to think his tax plan was a redistribution of wealth, Agent needed to speak up at least once in the 5+ times Ron gave him a chance to explain.
PS: You recently told me to stop calling people out as the IJ police because it was childish, but now you get on my case for not calling Ron out. Make up your mind dude. Simple question: do you want me to call people out or not? You can’t say “no, don’t do it” and then give me cr@p when I don’t call people out without being a hypocrite.
Ron – you said – “If you force people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck to pay federal income tax, how will that help the economy?”
They are many people above the poverty line that live paycheck to paycheck. That cannot be the reason why someone should not pay federal taxes. I know you did not say it, but it is inferred.
Regarding the distribution of wealth discussion, all of you are missing the point that all the money goes into the govt to help those that are really in need (below the poverty line) None of that money is going to the rich.
The rich will have more money to fuel the ecomonic engine, whether it is through spending or investing. That money will increase govt revenue and promote industrial growth (jobs and wages). It’s not black and white and there will be greedy corporations that hold back, but by and large, it moves the economy in the right direction.
For those that are living paycheck to paycheck and near the poverty line, there might be assistance available that improves their overall situation.
We need to motivate society to help themselves and not rely on the govt.
integrity matters,
You did not answer the question. I am well above the poverty line, but still live paycheck-to-paycheck and pay no federal income taxes due to having 3 children, a mortgage, make charitable contributions, have student loans, and pay state income and property taxes.
If I start paying federal income taxes, every dollar that goes to the goverenment is one less dollar I spend in the private sector. Please explain how that will help the economy?
Agent’s tax plan is to increase my taxes and have his lowered. He wants to redistribute my “wealth” to him through taxes. His plan actually makes it more difficult to improve the situation in which 43% of the population are currenty in. Get it?
If we lower the taxes on the rich, those who are currently making sufficient income to cover their expenses and also save, will you force them to spend the money and/or create jobs? Investing does not automatically create jobs since a lot of investment goes into technology that actually reduces the number of employees needed.
integrity matters,
One other thing.
You said, “For those that are living paycheck to paycheck and near the poverty line, there might be assistance available that improves their overall situation.
We need to motivate society to help themselves and not rely on the govt.”
Those 2 statements directly contradict each other.
Who pays for the assistance?
Ron – I would guess that a large portion of the middle class live paycheck to paycheck, myself included. I have all the same obligations that you mentioned. My Fed tax burden, however, is not eliminated entirely as yours seems to be. I am glad to hear that you have the ability to take advantage of the deductions that allow you to do that.
I do not know exactly what agent said regarding raising taxes on you, so I cannot defend or dispute them specifically.
My comments are meant to point out that it is not an even exchange of tax dollars (you put in an extra $5 and Agent pays $5 less). Personally, I do not think taxes should be raised on anyone. They should be lowered for everyone.
The next then becomes where does the money come from? The answer is that some revenue will come from the economic engine being started as mentioned earlier. A large portion of the revenue should come from reducing the size of the govt, itself. There are billions and billions of wasted money spent by the govt. They only want more of our money to continue to spend it. They are using the excuse of taking care of the poor to raise taxes. We could take care of the poor if they got rid of some of the other wasteful programs and cracked down on fraud.
I can see why my statements seemed contradictory. Sorry about that.
First, I recognize that there is a portion of society that needs help. Many (maybe most) of these people are trying to live the American dream but circumstances make it more difficult to move ahead. These people should be assisted (i.e.help them help themselves).
There is another portion of society that expects the govt to take care of them. These are the lazy people who do not WANT to work. They are content with their living conditions and these are the people that defraud the system.
I know of families that purport that they are separated and get govt assistance for their kids under the impression that they are single parent households. They get twice the subsidies that they should get. Both parents are drug addicts and make their children lie to perpetuate their assistance.
These people deserve nothing other than the opportunity to get cleaned up so they can support themselves. The children should be cared for and shown the love they deserve.
It may seem heartless. I think it is tough love.
Wow, Integrity. I actually agree with everything you just said. Will miracles never cease? Oh, wait a minute! My perspective is lower than dirt, so maybe it’s not a good thing me agreeing with you after all…
integrity matters,
You said, “I do not know exactly what agent said regarding raising taxes on you, so I cannot defend or dispute them specifically.” Agent believes every working American should have “skin in the game” and pay federal income taxes. Therefore, if someone, like myself, does not currently, it is a tax increase. Do you agree?
If I put in $5 more and Agent pays $5 less in taxes, is that a redistribution of wealth? If not, why?.
The last portion of your post I totally agree. The problem comes with identifying who is who. If we could just cut off the lazy, you have my blessing.
Libby – Thanks for agreeing with me. Regarding the “lower than dirt” comment, I apologized for that awhile ago. Sorry you missed it.
Ron – If the govt revenue from taxes was static, yes, there would be a “pseudo” transfer of who is actually paying the taxes.
It is not static, however, and the paying in of taxes is offset by the deductions one qualifies for. Neither of us can say whether the net affect would change or not. It would depend on the increase and the available deductions.
You mentioned in an earlier post that $1 taken from you for taxes is $1 less spent in the economy. The same holds true for the wealthy, although, they are likely to spend a lot more, by comparison, than that $1 (it’s relative). Their money spent has a greater chance to filter down to increase tax revenue and promote investment by corporations, providing job growth and higher wages.
Lastly, living paycheck to paycheck, for many of us, is the result of own own choices, myself included. Many (if not most) of us live above our means with credit because we want the new car or big screen tv now. I admit I have not been responsible enough with my money.
Getting tax breaks should not hinge on my (or anyone else’s) personal finance choices.
Likewise, the govt should not be propping up the portion of society that is making a choice to live off the govt, because they are comfortable with that lifestyle.
integrity matters,
You said, “You mentioned in an earlier post that $1 taken from you for taxes is $1 less spent in the economy. The same holds true for the wealthy, although, they are likely to spend a lot more, by comparison, than that $1 (it’s relative).” That is blantantly false. The wealthy are far more likely to save than spend if you lower their taxes because they already have more than enough to be able to buy whatever they want.
The middle class drives the economy, period.
In my opinion, nobody wants to live paycheck-to-paycheck and in most cases it is not due to financial decisions. It is more of a product of the economy. If everyone made enough money to save, the prices of goods and services would go up because people could afford to pay more. That will never stop in a capitalistic economic system.
You said, “Likewise, the govt should not be propping up the portion of society that is making a choice to live off the govt, because they are comfortable with that lifestyle.” This I agree with, but how do you determine who falls into that category compared to those who legitimayely need the assistance due to circumstances out of their control? I highly doubt most people who rely on government assistance are happy and living comfortably in nice homes, eating fine food, driving nice cars, etc. Most are probably very ashamed.
Integrity – You’re welcome. However, I feel compelled to point out that this is the second time you have called me out for “not noticing” a post of yours. If you go back and look at the date/time stamp of my posts you will see that I posted them well before your replies. I am up to date in my responses and I do appreciate your apology even if I didn’t say so at the time.
Who else got an invite to sit in on Bidens “ObamaCare” Conference Call?
FFA, it sure is a shame that some people on this blog do not know right from wrong. They were brainwashed into believing Obama was looking out for their best interests. Some say he has been honest and forthright with the American People. I wonder why the polls keep giving him an “F” in trustworthiness and low marks in governance. The liar in chief really did a number on their brains.
Agent,
It is a shame that you think ANY politician is looking out for your best interest.
Ron, it is a shame you are a knucklehead and voted for Obama too. Joe the Plumber would have made a better President. Had Obama done nothing but play golf all day every day and not proposed anything at all, the ship would have righted itself. Instead, he chose to make things worse by massive Keynsian spending, doing nothing for business except tax them more and then impose his redistribution of Healthcare scheme.
Agent,
Please quantify how things have gotten worse. Also, please cite a source that shows annual spending has been increasing since 2010. Finally, why was it OK for President Reagan to increase spending, debt, deficits and taxes during his term, but not President Obama?
Ok Ron, lowest labor participation rate in 30 years. Actual wages declining from pre 2009, food stamps at an all time high, disability claims at Social Security at an all time high, people giving up looking for work so they drop out giving skewed results on the unemployment rate. How many more signs do you need to see the economy is ill and not getting better?
Agent,
None of these things are indicative of the economy. They are by-products of which the health of the economy has no bearing. I will take GDP, stock markets, consumer spending and increases in net jobs over any of your indicators of the economy.
Why is the labor participation rate so low when companies, including your agency, are making record profits? Why aren’t they expanding and hiring? If you tell me it is because of who is the president, you may be the dumbest businessman, EVER! It is because consumer confidence (demand) has not been fully restored. Hint: Increasing taxes on 43% of the population will only make this worse.
Why have wages not increased? Because workers have not been in a position of strength due to the financial collpase that did occur under our previous president. Most empoyees are still in “happy to have a job” mode. As that changes, so will wages.
Why are record people on food stamps and disability? These people fall into 3 cateogries:
1. The group of people who depend on these legitimately due to circumstances outside of their control
2. People who are depending on these benefits temporarily until companies start hiring and/or increasing wages.
3. People who are too lazy to search for work or are committing fraud.
What about spending and my question about President Reagan?
Agent,
Interesting facts about the labor participation rate:
1. The highest rate occurred during President Clinton’s administration (67.2%)
2. The greatest increase during a single term was under President Carter (4.33%). Would you say the economy was booming during hie term? The second highest increse was during President Reagan’s second term (2.65%)
3. It is currently the lowest since President Carter left office, over 35 years.
4. We have experienced the greatest decline during President Obama’s first term (-2.74%). The second greatsest decline occurred during President Geaorg W Bush’s second term (-1.93%)
What does this tell us? Labor Force Participation is not indicative of economic health (see results during Carter’s term) nor does it espouse to any political affiliation.
Don’t confuse Agent with the facts. He doesn’t believe them.
Hey Integrity, so Ron is playing the redistribution of wealth game with you too complaining that I want to raise his taxes and reduce mine. I made the point that 47% pay no Federal Income tax and 53% pay all of it and the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes in this country. He doesn’t seem to get it does he? New poll out has 49% of all Americans living paycheck to paycheck, we have an out of control government continuing to waste tax dollars and proposing to waste even more by doing the two year free college education, free day care, free, free, free. How about cutting the waste out so all Americans get a tax break? Why not get rid of this nightmare Progressive tax code and install a flat or fair tax? I am sick of supporting half the population with high taxation on myself and business. It needs to stop.
Agent,
I am not playing the redistribution game, only pointing out that you are for redistribution of wealth.
Please explain how increasing the taxes on 43% of the country in order to lower the taxes for 57% is not a redistribution of wealth.
Also, please explain how taking billions of dollars out of the private sector and handing over to the governemtn will help the economy?
Until you can provide those explanations, keep you fair/flat tax plan to yourself.
You said, “I am sick of supporting half the population with high taxation on myself and business. It needs to stop.” Then move out of the country or sell your business and find a low enough paying job and join the 43%. I guarantee you that neither of us will be around if/when the progressive tax code is gone. Just being realistic.
I tell you what Ron, I will take my current tax rate and keep paying it if you will pay “some” Federal Tax rate, then you can’t accuse me of redistributing the wealth from you to me. Is that a fair offer? Can you swing 5%? Your $30,000 income would be only $1,500 and you could help reduce the deficit. Obama would be proud of you for accepting Personal Responsibility.
Agent – that’s $125 he’s probably paying per month for his student loans. Something you didn’t have when you were his age raising a family. Could you have afforded to give the government $125 per month back then? I think not.
Agent,
1. Fair enough. Now convince your Republican friends to increase taxes on 43% of the country and see how long your majority lasts.
2. I make far more than $30,000. Your plan would take $2,500 out of the private sector (I will have to cut my spending by that much) and give it to the government. Now multiple that by ~10 million households It may help the government, but please tell me how that will help the economy.
Ron, I understand what you’re saying but that logic applies to ALL taxpayers, not just the 47%. What happens if we all hang onto our money and nothing is contributed for roads, infrastructure, education, assistance, defense, etc? The country would go to hell in a hand basket.
Libby,
I am not talking about increasing or reducing taxes for anyone. I am only pointing out to how Agent’s tax plan would adversely affect the economy that, even though improving, is still in a fragile state. In my opinion, the governemtn already has plenty of money. My position is more focused on reducing spending than tax reform.
As I mentioned to Agent in the past, it 43% that do not pat federal income taxes, not 47%. A fact that should make Agent happy. When you think about who makes up that 43%, it is not exactly people swimming in discretionary cash. These are people who will need to spend less in the private sector in order to pay more in taxes. That is my point.
http://www.businessinsider.com/43-of-americans-dont-pay-federal-income-tax-2013-9
Don’t know why everyone gets so worked up. You voted in a community organizer whose only skills are giving speaches and giving away other people’s money, irrelevant whether they can afford it or not. ‘s only got 2 more years to keep burying our grandchildren with his doubling of the national debt.
Perhaps a new president can bring back jobs and cut back on all the giveaways so we can get this country going back in the right direction. The alternative is we can keep going down this road until the workers get fed up supporting half the country and revolt.
normct,
I will assume that you also criticized Presidents Reagan and GW Bush for doubling the debt during their terms.
The debt did not double because of any of these presidents. It doubled because our representatives in Congress, from both parties, are more interested in bringing home the bacon to keep their jobs that actually cut the spending to help the country.
Also on the local news, the Jacki Robinson West Little League team that appeared in the Little League World Series was stripped of their title and all their victories for cheating… Corruption on all levels even at the expense of children running rampant in IL.
Yes, I saw that FFA. Corruption started at the top and has worked its way down to Little League Baseball in their pursuit to win it all. I suspected this for several years. Chinese Taipai would come over to play and their kids were taller, stronger than the American kids and they had bogus birth certificates. I don’t think they were ever penalized.
FFA, I saw where the “Reverand Jessie Jackson” thinks this is unfair and is mounting a protest. Could riots/looting be on the horizon?
Agent — Says the man that has a son in jail for cheating. His daughter in law is also headed there for her corruption / cheating too. He also has a child born out of wed lock while he was married while he was “counseling” Bill & Hillary through their marriage issues.
And Agent, may I add I did not watch the news last night. Had a late night with kids getting to bed – more turmoil – so I watched The Americans instead of the nightly news.
The Americans is one of our favorite shows, but not suitable for children due to the nudity (Kerri Russell) on display last night and the occasional violence. Pretty good spy show on how the Russians were gleaning info from the US. That FBI guy is a real dufus. They are right under his nose and he has no clue.
In the first episode, he was sniffing around their car as it resembled the general description. Eager to find out how the Faith plot is going to play out. Real slick escape from the trap last night too.
…and Hank didn’t know his brother-in-law was selling meth for years. They’re TV shows dude, you need to suspend reality every now and again.
PS: now asking for the 4th time today Agent — do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
Rose, I have a life long gal pal. Met her x in High school. Two years ago, came to be that he has been a Coke Head since before they met. Issue didn’t surface until he decided Heroine was a better choice for him. The hank thing is more relatable to me – almost reality. Took everyone by surprise big time.
She’s either pretty naive or just asleep at the wheel.
Naïve… He hid it well. He dad was a cop. He didn’t even know.
Asleep at the wheel Libby? I think you must have been asleep at the wheel when your first hubby was cheating on you and then you stood by your man until he wore his welcome out.
You were also asleep at the wheel when you let the smooth talker talk you into voting for him twice.
Agent, you’re despicable. The fact that you would bring that into conversation is disgusting. I hope you rot in hell.
Hey FFA, another late breaking story from the Washington Times. On the left coast, the embattled Oregon governor who had the “fiance” who was using her “position” to abscond with funds so he decided to resign. Guess what, he will be replaced by a half lezzie female Secretary of State. I guess they don’t have Lieutenant Governors out there in lefty land. By the way, Oregon never wrote one policy of Obamacare in their exchange despite receiving millions to set it up. They might not be quite as corrupt as Illinois, but they are gaining.
Tell me oh great bigot, what is a “half lezzie?”
Hey FFA, I don’t know if you caught any of the series – State of Affairs starring Kathryn Heigel and Alfre Woodard playing the President. What a good show it has been. Lot’s of drama with the CIA, White House and their pursuit of terrorists. It is the only programming I watch on the Brian Williamless NBC.
FFA, how about we lightening up from quarreling with the Progressive Leftists on this site. A buddy of mine sent me the following funny email. Title is Sheriffs Exam in Texas
A young Texan grew up wanting to become a lawman. He grew up big, strong as a Longhorn, and fast as a Mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces.
When he came of age, he applied to where he had dreamed of working, a West Texas Sherriff’s Department. After a series of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy called him into the office for the last interview. The Chief Deputy said, you are a big, strong kid and you can really shoot. All of your qualifications look good, but we have what is called an “Attitude Suitability Test” that you must pass before you can be accepted. We don’t let anyone carry our badge, son.
Then, sliding a service pistol and box of ammo across the desk, the Deputy said, take this pistol and go out and shoot: six illegal aliens, six lawyers, six Meth dealers, six Muslim extremists, six Democrats and a rabbit.
Why the rabbit asked the young man?
You pass, said the Deputy. When can you start?
Apparently FFA, the apple does not fall far from the tree with the Jackson bunch. Is Junior still in jail or did daddy spring him for good behavior?
Agent, after reading a few of your statements above, I am just shaking my head. You’re a disgusting, dark-hearted ass. The limited times I comment it is usually a general message regarding everyone’s behavior, but you took the cake this time. You are miserable.
As far as I know, JR is in jail. He asked for his wifes’ time on his sentence but the judge said no. He gets out. She goes in. Sr lost any and all respect when he was caught on tape referring to Ny City Heimie Town.
Hey Nerd, if you were reading my joke and think that of me, you have no sense of humor, kind of like Ron, Rosenblatt, Libby etc. Why don’t you post one of your Progressive jokes and ask me what I think of them. There are plenty around about the President who is the biggest joke in the country.
Agent, for at least the 4th time – please stop dragging me into discussions I’m not participating in. If you really want me to comment on this thread I will, but I don’t think you’ll like it.
Agent – if you can’t read over your posts and figure out which ones Nerd is talking about, you’ve got to be the dumbest poster on IJ. But then again, you are!
Agent, my comment was certainly not about your silly little joke. I said ‘your statements’, not ‘your joke’. FYI, I have an excellent sense of humor and am not a Progressive. I’ve just never run across anyone quite like you. That’s not a compliment, by the way.
If Obama is so concerned about these corporations cutting people’s hours, let him pay for their health care.
If Mr. Obama actually had any real business experience, he would understand some basic business concepts.
#1: Revenues – Expenses = Profit
#2: 95% of the time, government regulation INCREASES EXPENSES.
#3: If expenses are increased in one area, a company must either increase its revenues or cut expenses in other areas to make up the difference.
Uh, it’s PRESIDENT Obama to you, pal.
Libby–what is it with you today calling everyone ‘pal’?? You sound angry and sarcastic. And….I don’t refer to Obama as president, either. I have ZERO respect for the man, and I don’t even like typing his name. He may be YOUR president, but I certainly don’t consider him to be mine. If he were a president of the people, by the people, and for the people, then I’d consider him my president.
Trust me, as long as you are a United States citizen, he’s YOUR President, too. You may not like him, but you need to recognize his position. I didn’t like Dubya, but he was the President like it or not. I didn’t vote for him either time, but he still got elected and I was still stuck with him. I would expect your side to show the same respect we did to your guy. And, yes, the pal comment was somewhat sarcastic. I get tired of the lack of common courtesy on here because you disagree with his politics. It’s petty and immature.
You do not talk, nor did you talk, cordially when talking about Bush W.
She/he does not have to put president before talking about Obama.
It is actually you being a brat asking her/him to call Obama President Obama any time she talks about what she doesn’t like.
She isn’t mandated to give him a cordial name, nor any politician. We don’t give cordial names to corporate aholes, and we aren’t about to do the same for their (more corrupt) government leader counterparts.
Mr, as a side comment, is actually a title that screams “I respect you as a human, not as a bad president” so she/he was WELL within bounds of respect.
No, bob. It has nothing to do with being cordial. He is NOT Mr. Obama. He is President Obama. Period.
You should address him as such or just call him Obama. And no, I didn’t speak cordially about Bush, but I never called him Mr. and I never denied he was my President.
Interestingly, NPR has been taking flak on the “President / Mister” topic since Gerald Ford as well.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2009/12/why_do_you_call_him_mr_obama.html
Trust me, Libby is angry that her adulation of this President has been so wrong for almost 7 years running. I tried to find anything I agreed with him on about governing or policy and he was found wanting in every case. I disagreed with Bush on a lot of things, but I did agree with him on some things. Not one agreement on Obama. He is a very bad President, the worst of my lifetime.
Really, Agent? You can’t find ONE thing he did you liked?
How about (1) Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and NOT as his VP, or (2) sending in troops to take out Osama Bin Laden, or (3) relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, or (4) reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children?
None of those 4 things you liked? Not even one?!?
PS – attempt # 5: do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
“Libby is angry that her adulation of this President has been so wrong for almost 7 years running.”
How dare you put words in my mouth, Agent. I am not angry nor do I adore Obama. Speak for yourself and leave me out of it, old man.
Rosenblatt:
“How about (1) Hillary Clinton for secretary of state and NOT as his VP, or (2) sending in troops to take out Osama Bin Laden, or (3) relaxing the statute of limitations for equal-pay lawsuits, or (4) reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover an additional 4 million uninsured children?”
1. Is not a highlight. Character choice is your argument then?
2. Any president would have done this. He also derailed the search for Osama by releasing Gitmo detainees, and also otherwise lying that Osama was never in Iraq to use it as a means to win the election. He used Bush W’s intel, while condemning the methods that lead to it. Even while we got Osama, Obama made us go backwards in how we deal with terrorism.
3. I am going to have to see this one, as the republicans specifically had a fight about this that was mentioned during the debates, between Romney and Obama. Wherein the republicans said they didn’t want to pass a law that would make it possible to sue a company far more leniently, in terms of discrimination. I highly doubt he laxed any laws regarding this. Unless you mean to say he made it easier to sue for discrimination and that is your definition of laxing the laws. That is not a good thing. Only a matter of opinion if you think it is.
4. “Re” authorizing something that was already in place I take it? One that could help his image and involved kids?
It is not putting words in your mouth, Libby, for him to say you are obsessed with Obama.
Otherwise, your commentary to many conservatives here, would be the same.
So stop trying the idiotic tactic of saying “you put words in my mouth!” in order to discredit agent.
Rosenblat, this is exactly what I said you take the wrong side on.
Libby just bluntly tried an ad hominem style tactic to discredit agent and to be misleading.
The thing you hate.
I don’t see you taking action.
First of all, bob, he didn’t say “obsessed” he said “adored.” I do not ADORE Obama. And neither am I obsessed with him any more than you are obsessed with Bush.
You’re really reaching here trying to find something to with which to scold me. I was correct in telling Agent not to speak for me. He can say that’s his opinion, but he can’t state it as fact. If you think that’s nit-picking the issue, so be it. But it doesn’t change the fact that I’m right.
Bob – You recently told me to stop calling people out as the IJ police because it was childish, but now you get on my case for not calling Libby out.
Make up your mind.
Simple question: do you want me to call people out or not?
You can’t say “no, don’t do it” and then give me cr@p when I don’t call people out without being a hypocrite.
True, Rosenblatt, but I didn’t do anything to be called out for. Agent made a statement about what I think and how I feel, which was totally off the mark. I called him on it. Period.
I agree Libby, but I was trying to avoid getting dragged into other points in this conversation I had nothing to do with in the first place.
I just want bob to be consistent with his message to me.
Either he wants me to keep calling people out or he doesn’t.
He can’t tell me I’m childish to call people out, tell me to stop, and then tell me I need to do a better job of calling people out – nor can he tell me I need to keep calling people out and then tell me I’m childish when I do so.
I’m just trying to figure out if he wants me to call folks out or not as it seems to me that he wants it both ways.
They all want it both ways.
GenX, Progressive have no clue about profit, just government solutions to everything and to h – – – with businesses. Wonderful Hillary thinks businesses don’t create jobs. I sure hope they play that tape when she is running. Between her and Elizabeth Warren, they are so anti-business, it is a joke.
We used to joke that American had the best politicians money can buy. These days we just have politicians that money can buy and no “best” about it. Both sides suck for many reasons. We don’t need politicians. We need leaders. We need so many things I don’t see ever happening. We truly do have a divided country when we are living in a time where we need to be more together than ever before. It is a shame to see how this great country has fallen apart in just a few decades. Both sides are at fault. Both.
Wayne2–at least the right is more constitutional than the left. That, in my opinion, is what separates the men from the boys…or, for you libs, the women from the girls. Gotta be politically correct on all accounts.
There is nothing un-Constitutional about anything Obama has done. If there were, he would have been tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
O.M.G., Libby…do you REALLY believe that!??
Yes. Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional and I will show you that it is not.
Don’t you think the Republicans would JUMP at a chance to humiliate, degrade, and impeach him if they could? They would. And they haven’t. Because they can’t.
Yes. They would. And they have.
And any time they have tried, you mock them for trying.
What is your point?
Democrats are good at creating a lose lose political scenario. Stop us, you lose. Campaign your point, you lose. The only way you win is doing what they want.
When have they tried to impeach him? Never. That’s when.
They have tried to bring lawsuits against him.
And what happened Libby?
You guys complained until the cows came home that it was not fair or right.
So on one end, you want them to do it to prove they have a case.
And on the other, if they try, they are playing politics, and you will burn their whole party to the ground in the media.
Don’t be absurd. You couldn’t have missed the lawsuits being filed.
Also, generally, to be impeached you have to take the matter to the supreme court. Which Obama has made a point of attempting to stop, by making it into a flame war, and he wins the public image by basically saying:
“These guys are so radical, that they are trying to file lawsuits against me and impeach me!”.
I have seen these things on every station, you are lying if you have not! You know darn well the republicans have tried, and now you jump to the other side to say that they haven’t, and the fact that they haven’t means that Obama has done nothing wrong?
And then you’ll jump back and say the very reason you will never vote republican is that they would DARE ever try to sue Obama.
Yeah, I get it. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
WAKE UP. You can’t be this indoctrinated.
bob – you’re an idiot. Filing a lawsuit challenging an executive order is a far cry from impeachment. And since these lawsuits have not been tried yet, it is still undetermined whether he acted within the Constitution or not. He is innocent until proven guilty.
“And then you’ll jump back and say the very reason you will never vote republican is that they would DARE ever try to sue Obama.” WTF??? When did I say that?
have NEVER said I NEVER vote Republican, you twit. I voted Republican in the mid-terms. I also voted for Reagan. So, take your assuming ass and shut the hell up.
Libby…now you’re gonna say that Clinton was never impeached, right?
Did I say that? NO.
The current tenant in the White House needs to act a bit more “presidential” in his last two years in office, and less like a spoiled child.
Libby says:
“Yes. Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional and I will show you that it is not”
You should know that Obama’s actions to further expand the power of the federal government has been defeated unanimously in 13 cases as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court since January 2012.He could not even hold the votes of his two appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor. His tenure in office has been a never ending assault on the Constitution that threatens the liberty and freedom we cherish as Americans.
So impeach him! What are you waiting for?
You asked a question “Tell me what he has done that is un-Constitutional…” I answered your question. 13 unanimous decisions by the Supreme Court ruling against his unconstitutional acts since January 2012.
The same can be said of almost every President. Very few have been impeached.
http://www.infocafe.com/index.phpname=News&file=article&sid=208
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1639
Where was your Patriotic outrage then, huh??? Or does it only apply to Obama? Give me a break. Hypocrites! All of you!
The same can be said of almost every President. Very few have been impeached.
Where was your Patriotic outrage then, huh??? Or does it only apply to Obama? Give me a break. Hypocrites! All of you!
The links will post later…
Your memory is short Libby. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Federal Grand Jury about his escapades with the young Democratic intern. Nixon had impeachment papers drawn up against him due to Watergate and lying to Congress about his role and protecting his minions. He only avoided Impeachment because he resigned and Ford pardoned him. Clinton should have been removed, but Reid blocked it in the Senate. Both of those rotten Presidents dishonored the office. The current President should have been impeached for his dozens of lies to the people, but Republicans would be called “racists” for doing it so they bide their time and we have less than two years remaining if the country survives.
Attempt # 6
Agent — do we still have a like/dislike voting truce or not? The truce being you don’t upvote your own comments like crazy and I don’t balance it out by disliking those posts the same amount of times. Please advise one way or another.
Agent hasnt even answered the weed / state’s rights question. BECAUSE HE IS A HYPOCRITE! BAHAHAHAH
My memory’s not short, Agent. Your level of reading comprehension is, though. My comment was “Very few have been impeached.” Do you think 2 Presidents out of 40-something is very few or not? If so, then apologize to me. I certainly don’t need a history lesson from you, of all people.
Your “racist” cop-out as the reason for not impeaching Obama is just that, a COP-OUT. If you could, you would and you know it.
And I’ll say it again:
“Filing a lawsuit challenging an executive order is a far cry from impeachment.”
WHY HAVEN’T YOU GUYS IMPEACHED HIM???
Hey Patriot, how about that Federal Judge coming down on Obama’s amnesty plan which is also Unconstitutional? Another one on the list. President’s can’t make law or change the ones on the books. Another fight is brewing.
For those anti Keystone advocates, there was a huge train derailment in West Virginia yesterday and the train was loaded with oil & gasoline. The river next to the tracks had a big spill into it. Would this have happened with the pipeline?
Agent,
Only the upreme Court can decide constituionality.
maybe if the Congress would address the immigrant problem, the president would not need to.
Ron, only the upreme Court can decide Constitutionality?
maybe if the Congress would address the immigrant problem, the president would not need to. ??????
Ron, please go to typing school or grammar school. You are speaking a different language than we are.
Agent,
Now I see our disconnect. I focus on substantance and you focus on spelling and grammar.
No wonder why I constantly win our debates.
Very pithy reply, Agent. Unless you have something useful to contribute, why don’t you refrain from being a troll?
Agent – found this on another IJ article:
“Agent says: I gave you the source. Look it up for yourself. Most insurance professionals escept you take Property Casualty 360 for their informative insurance stories.”
Seems like you should keep your criticisms to yourself. You don’t always spell correctly and your grammar (Us Agents as an example) is atrocious.
Ron, please describe your substance. You are speaking pig latin. I suppose that is the disconnect.
Obomb Obomb our savior is back
don’t worry brutha’ I’ve covered your back
your healthcare and food your vgra and b contra too
they’ll have to pay for it – not me and you.
From the rich we will plunder; R Hood would be proud,
we’ll have them pinching pennies and only eating scones
Indeed, they’ll be pawning their silver for me and for you.
Keep your doc and your favorite nurse too, oh by the way that doesn’t apply to you……….
Plus by the time he leaves office Mr. Obama will have doubled the national debt from $9.7 to over $19.5 Trillion. In eight years he will have added more debt than all previous Presidents combined.
The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913 when Dubya left office, not $9.7. You’re off by a trillion.
What a Trill among bloggers Libby???
Actually Patriot, discounting what will be added in the next 2 years, Obama has already added more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Bush did not add all previous debt. Yes, he added some in the war against evil doers after 9/11 and yes he signed onto much of the spending legislation of Pelosi & Reid. For that, I think he was a RINO and went along to get along. However, it pales in comparison to Obama and his free spending ways.
POE ADDICT, the rich are plundering the middle class every day. Raising prices and stagnating salaries and wages, while they take an increasingly (and obscenely) larger chunk every day.
You can come out of hiding now Booger.
Libby says: I discovered Staples offers a defined benefit plan for part-time employees for a cost of $20/week. It is better than offering nothing, so I have changed my opinion on Staples and the ACA”
So, you found proof that OBama was just talking to talk, making stuff up.
FFA, I want to wish you a Happy Valentines Day and hope your wife is doing well and in less pain. I took mine out last night because it is so hard to get in a nice restaurant on Valentine’s Day.
Maybe its just hard because the restaurants realize what kind of person you are, Agent? Even Texans have their limits regarding polite company.
I asked one of them if they could put you on Stan and they said you could empty the garbage or bus tables or wash dishes. In no way would they let you be a waiter because they wanted people to patronize them again.
I am not patronizing you, Agent. I am mocking you since I have a lot of contempt and ridicule for dumb takers like you who are ruining the country.
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-difference-between-patronizing-and-mocking-someone
Mock away Stan. Everyone on this blog knows you have 0 credibility and are just a hater of anyone successful. I can certainly see why no one will hire your sorry butt. Go back to fleecing senior citizens and stay off this blog.
Nice try, Agent. I dont hate successful people. I hate old people who take from the system while benefitting from a robust and growing economy then bitch when young people struggle under different circumstances.
I hate Texas republicans that complain about too much govt, but then demand protection from people who text when drive. I hate old people who complain about states rights but want to ban pot at the federal level.
I hate hypocritcal voters who have uneducated positions based on simplistic talking points.
Actually, come to think of it, I guess you do qualify after all.
Stan, you have enough hate in you equal to 5-10 Progressives on this site. Were you an abused child or are you just an angry OWS type blogging in your basement while mooching off mom? You should try to get an appointment with a good psychoanalyst to rid yourself of your anger management issues. If that doesn’t work, perhaps a hypnotist could be of value.
I wish I could see someone, but I cant because I cant afford health insurance because of republican policies. I wish you would work more so that I could spend your tax dollars.
But Stan, Its affordable. OfnBama said so.
No, that’s not what I said, FFA.
I’m amazed that we’ve become so desensitized to the compensation enjoyed by CEO’s. There job is to maximize shareholder value and not to pay workers an adequate wage. There job is to build up the stock so they can exercise their stock options and not provide a good product or service. When this form of insider trading was approved under the Reagon administration, the landscape changed.
For years they went after blue collar America. Exporting jobs, killing off the unions. Now, they are coming after the middle class. Yes that is you and I. The 1% continues to thrive while the 99% sink. Yet, the conservative (rich) pundits continue to rail against Obama and all the bad things he is doing. So many of the middle class fall lock step into their party line, not realizing what is happening to them. Poor America! We are truly doomed to become a third world county ruled by the oligarchs. See Mexico.
jade, back in the old days, it was a great thing to be profitable and create jobs for working Americans. That is called American Exceptionalism and it actually worked. With the advent of Progressive Socialism and the highest corporate tax rate in the world, no wonder so many companies saw the handwriting on the wall and moved jobs offshore. If companies aren’t being taxed to death, they are regulated to death by the EPA or other government agencies. We have almost half the population paying no Federal Tax at all and the other half supporting them. 70% of the taxes are paid by the top 10% and yet they aren’t paying their fair share. Guys like Buffet, Gates have a legion of tax lawyers on the payroll to make sure their taxes are minimal. The people between $50,000 – $250,000 are the Middle Class to upper middle class that don’t get the same breaks and they are carrying the burden. That is why serious tax reform is needed to get everyone a fair shake on taxes.
Agent, I agree. Tax reform plus it is time to return to government for the people, of the people and by the people. Time to eliminate lobbying by large corps, who benefit from forms of corporate welfare. Large companies eagerly seek “regulations” to eliminate competition. The tax rates are high, but the proof is what is actually paid. Remember GE!!!
Jade the only alternative is to scrap the current tax code and eliminate the IRS. Based on the National Taxpayers Advocate the statues and regulations in 2012 equaled 4 million words roughly 450 words per page totaling 9,000 pages. When you add in the case law it is over 70,000 pages. For the years 2001-2012 the tax code has changed 4,680 times an average of once day. I believe your reference to GE pertains to year 2010 when some in the media incorrectly said they paid no taxes. It was later discovered the basis for their original report that they paid no taxes was a misreading of their financial statements, which are not the same as their tax returns. They paid state, federal and local taxes of $1B that year.
Patriot, you sound like a Ted Cruz fan, abolishing the IRS. A lot of people think he is a bit too much Tea Party, but perhaps what the country needs right now is to wake up, get back to the Constitution and do the right thing for the people instead of catering to special interests and the Progressive agenda.
jade, I remember when Obama appointed Jeffery Immelt, the wonderful CEO of GE to be in charge of job creation. His first move was to move a whole division of GE to China. He was creating jobs all right, for China. The US, not so much.
Agent those jobs moved to China help add to 2m manufacturing jobs that have been lost from the US since Obama has been in office.
Yes Patriot, real wages have declined under Obama, lowest labor participation rate in 30 years, cost of living has gone up, record number of people on foodstamps, record number of disability applicants to Social Security, record number of people giving up for lack of a job and liberals think the economy has rebounded with their bogus unemployment rate.
Agent,
Still waiting for a response to the following:
Interesting facts about the labor participation rate:
1. The highest rate occurred during President Clinton’s administration (67.2%)
2. The greatest increase during a single term was under President Carter (4.33%). Would you say the economy was booming during hie term? The second highest increse was during President Reagan’s second term (2.65%)
3. It is currently the lowest since President Carter left office, over 35 years.
4. We have experienced the greatest decline during President Obama’s first term (-2.74%). The second greatsest decline occurred during President Geaorg W Bush’s second term (-1.93%)
What does this tell us? Labor Force Participation is not indicative of economic health (see results during Carter’s term) nor does it espouse to any political affiliation.
Been in the field past two days and looks like you all been busy blogging…
Libby, Something that may be of interest to you.
On Saturday night (Valentine Day), I saw The Romantics and Lover Boy on the same stage. Not sure if this is a national tour, but it was a great show. Lover Boy was awesome!
Sounds like a fun concert! What a great Valentine’s Day present!
That was my present. She wanted to go play the slots on the boat. We both had a good time on both dates.
Did you go together or separate dates?
Together. She was belly aching about the concert. I told her to stay home and I would take one of the kids. She said she would “put up” with it. Walked out smiling ear to ear – more then she did off the boat.
You spoil her! She’s a lucky lady! My husband was out of town for V.D. :-(
He did get me roses and chocolate covered strawberries before he left, though. :-)
I do still lover her… 17+ years and counting.
Realtor came by today. Took Pictures. Market Listing tomorrow AM. 60 – 90 days market time is what she is telling me.