According to Fox News Keith Rupert Murdochs newspapers The Wall Street Journal" article from a couple of weeks ago, March 2014 & lets take into account that January has historically forever been a horrible month economically due to all those temporary holiday jobs being eliminated plus construction also at a standstill due to bad weather. Enjoy My Reference: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/obamacare-january-bea_n_4892267.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular Best Regards Lobato1
Hahahahaha! I read the Huffington Post Puff and Stuff piece. Ahem! Stuffing taxpayer money into selected taxpayer pockets is not a sustainable economic growth program. A principle so simple that even a leftwinger should be able to grasp it.
English ain't your 1st language huh? Allow me to educate you: In general terms & in part the article stated in part that persons needing to work at more than one job no longer needed the supplement that additional income for health care insurance. Left unsaid was that those employers hiring those persons as temporaries will no longer have that cheap labor & will eventually have to hire new permanent employees if they want to continue servicing their customers. You can thank me now for educating you. Best Regards Lobato1
Woohoo! Let's all celebrate spending more on health care. Spending more on healthcare makes us richer!
Hahahahahah! That crap was thoroughly debunked across the Internet in general and PF specifically about two months ago. Essentially the freaking Obama administration has now made it more likely that unambitious low end workers will just suck off the government teat at taxpayer's expense . . . Obama's end goal being to convince poor people NOT to work for a living. Psssst . . . having the bulk of your citizens on the permanent dole is not -- gasp! -- actually good for a nation economically speaking.
You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about other than just to answer any BS that comes to mind: & in your words not mine: See: The article of my reference as of yesterday April 3, 2014 when you answered with your BS giving absolutely no references to back up your BS, that article was not even one month old, since it was published March 4, 2014. Nice try with your usual BS, try again. ROTFLMAO Best Regards Lobato1
You REALLY don't read much news outside a few sheltered areas where you will only encounter what makes you feel good, I take it. Suit yourself, but this was thoroughly discussed some time ago. Pssst . . . for a little while it was a big deal and -- gasp! -- was in the news and everything. Sheesh!
How are people richer when their hours are capped at 29 per week? How are they richer under Obamacare if they are single, earn $49,000 and are not entitled to subsidies as their employer has dumped them into Obamacare? How are you richer if you are employee number fifty in a company and you are laid off because the employer needs to stay under fifty employees in order to avoid Obamacare? One group that Obama made richer were insurance companies. The other group of people Obama has made richer is Wall Street with his cash injections via the fed.
So you really think that department stores and other retail centers who historically hired temporary help will do so with the increased cost Obamacare created? Not only that, but you believe that they will just go ahead and assume MORE cost and hire them full time? Good lord. Have you ever run anything more complex than a lemonade stand? All things like Obamacare will do is eliminate those positions. End of story. What this article basically says, is that if you confiscate money from peter, and give it to paul, you can count that as income twice. A second grader knows that simply isn't true. When money is confiscated from a person through taxation, they never "SPENT" the money, nor did it add to their wealth. Its only counted once. Its stagnation. LIberal policies are so ass backwards. How do you fall for it?
Huff and Puff, eh? Allow me to paraphrase the famous saying: "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper (the Huffington Post) and unlock the secrets of the universe." - Lex Luthor
If you are single and making 49 large you can easily afford ACA. And making up three strawman arguments doesn't change that.
First, you ignored everything else. Second, the point is, had you not had the ACA, employers with or without union contracts were paying a portion of the premiums. In many cases that has or will be gone as soon as the mandate is enforced. And the thread said Obama has made Americans 'richer' when it is actually quite the opposite. Rename it as it is not affordable as it once was. And without subsides, it is not affordable at all. So where was the 'straw man' again?
