Four More Years!!!

[Doc]

Really Doc? Hey I know you LOVE to concentrate on the bad (or presumed bad), but if you don't believe EVERY politician doesn't play that game then you are fooling yourself.

Oh, the irony. Wait, what is your problem with Romney again?

 

Who praised buying houses with subprime, no doc loans while not warning that foreclosures were climbing monthly, to all time highs? ?

Was it this guy?

[B-Man]

Top Five Worst Obamacare Taxes Coming in 2013

 

Of the twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare, below are the five worst that will be foisted upon Americans for the first time on January 1, 2013.

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax – a $20 billion tax increase: Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to prosthetics more expensive.

The Obamacare “Special Needs Kids Tax” – a $13 billion tax increase: The 30-35 million Americans who use a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2,500 (currently the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap).

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year

 

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income – a $123 billion tax increase: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

 

..................................Capital Gains.............Dividends.............Other

 

2012 ............................15%..............................15%...................35%

 

2013 + current law.........23.8%........................43.4%...............43.4%

 

 

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions – a $15.2 billion tax increase: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans. This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

 

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike -- an $86.8 billion tax increase: The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits. Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases.

 

 

http://atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217#ixzz27rnmCgC9

 

 

.

[Gary M]

http://atr.org/five-...7#ixzz27rnmCgC9

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

But only the "rich" will pay more!!!!

 

As they slowly lower the standard of "rich" to mean anyone with a JOB!!!!!

 

:wallbash:

[Duck_dodgers007]

 

 

 

But only the "rich" will pay more!!!!

 

As they slowly lower the standard of "rich" to mean anyone with a JOB!!!!!

 

:wallbash:

The rich pay too much already! Romney will give them another tax cut they totally deserve!

 

 

But only the "rich" will pay more!!!!

 

As they slowly lower the standard of "rich" to mean anyone with a JOB!!!!!

 

:wallbash:

[B-Man]

Four more years of this type of 'leadership' ?

 

 

Obama administration tells contractors again: Don’t issue layoff notices

 

The Obama administration issued new guidance intended for defense contractors Friday afternoon, reiterating the administration’s position that the companies should not be issuing layoff notices over sequestration.

 

The Labor Department issued guidance in July saying it would be “inappropriate” for contractors to issue notices of potential layoffs tied to sequestration cuts. But a few contractors, most notably Lockheed Martin, said they still were considering whether to issue the notices — which would be sent out just days before the November election.

 

But the Friday guidance from the Office of Management and Budget raised the stakes in the dispute, telling contractors that they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration — but only if the contractors follow the Labor guidance.

 

The guidance said that if plant closings or mass layoffs occur under sequestration, then “employee compensation costs for [Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification] WARN act liability as determined by a court” would be paid for covered by the contracting federal agency.

 

In Chicago, this is called "buying your cooperation"....................with taxpayer money of course..

 

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259305-omb-tells-contractors-once-again-dont-issue-layoff-notices

Edited September 29, 2012 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

Four more years of this type of 'leadership' ?

 

 

 

 

In Chicago, this is called "buying your cooperation"....................with taxpayer money of course..

 

 

http://thehill.com/b...-layoff-notices

 

That's actually not what the White House and DOL are saying. They're saying that it would be improper to give 60 days advanced notice, as required by the WARN act, because sequestration isn't "reasonably" foreseeable.(meaning that there's still uncertainty as to whether they will occur, and precisely what contracts and programs will be chopped).

 

They can still lay off people...they just can't tell people two months in advance and expect to be reimbursed for any legal costs if they do.

[B-Man]

That's actually not what the White House and DOL are saying. They're saying that it would be improper to give 60 days advanced notice, as required by the WARN act, because sequestration isn't "reasonably" foreseeable.(meaning that there's still uncertainty as to whether they will occur, and precisely what contracts and programs will be chopped).

 

They can still lay off people...they just can't tell people two months in advance and expect to be reimbursed for any legal costs if they do.

 

I disagree with that interpretation, there is no uncertainty that they will occur, which is precisely why the administration wants to delay the coming announcements.

 

In other words, taxpayers will cover the costs of these layoffs through more spending, even though the point of sequestration was to force cuts in government spending.

 

Instead of paying contractors — mainly defense workers — to work, we’ll start paying them not to work. And why? Because the White House doesn’t want massive numbers of layoff notices coming in the last few days ahead of the election.

 

and make no mistake — with overall durable goods orders dropping 13.2% in a month and defense orders dropping 40%, those layoff notices would otherwise be coming, and sooner rather than later.

 

In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal.

 

Unless those funds are coming from Team Obama, this looks pretty corrupt — which is undoubtedly why Obama chose to have this OMB edict issued late on Friday afternoon, when few would be paying attention.

.

[DC Tom]

I disagree with that interpretation, there is no uncertainty that they will occur, which is precisely why the administration wants to delay the coming announcements.

 

In other words, taxpayers will cover the costs of these layoffs through more spending, even though the point of sequestration was to force cuts in government spending.

 

Instead of paying contractors — mainly defense workers — to work, we’ll start paying them not to work. And why? Because the White House doesn’t want massive numbers of layoff notices coming in the last few days ahead of the election.

 

and make no mistake — with overall durable goods orders dropping 13.2% in a month and defense orders dropping 40%, those layoff notices would otherwise be coming, and sooner rather than later.

 

In other words, the White House wants taxpayers to pay to cover up the inevitable outcome of sequestration to keep Barack Obama from suffering the political consequences of his own deal.

 

Unless those funds are coming from Team Obama, this looks pretty corrupt — which is undoubtedly why Obama chose to have this OMB edict issued late on Friday afternoon, when few would be paying attention.

.

 

It's not just uncertainty on if they'll occur (and legally, there is uncertainty - although I agree with you, it's a damn near certainty). It's uncertainty on what will be affected - contract cuts are up to the contracting agency, until that's communicated by the agency to the contractors, the contractor can't know which employees are going to be laid off. If there's ANY fault to be laid there, it's on the contracting agencies not giving forewarning to their contractors (which either means they're unprepared, or withholding the information. More likely unprepared - that's speaking from direct and immediate experience, since my project just went through that exact sort of thing this week. In fact, that's quietly happening around the government - budgets are starting to tighten, and contractors are being let go.)

 

What's more, there's a good argument to be made that employees can't be given advanced notice of layoffs before sequestration actually occurs, since government projects are fully funded for FY2013 (which starts Monday) - announcing layoffs now for a project that's "fully funded" (even if only on paper) is a pretty blatant violation of the contractor's responsibilities towards their contract (it's in effect saying "We're not actually going to DO the work we're being asked to do" - yes, again, simply because the project budgets as they stand now on paper are fully funded. Silly? Yes...welcome to the reality of government contracting.)

 

Plus...even though OMB's guidance was issued yesterday afternoon, it was only to clarify a memo from two months ago, in response to questions about who would cover the costs of notifications under WARN (side note: the real problem here is that WARN is idiotic). It's not new guidance, it's just a clarifying statement on old guidance from the DOL, and it's only saying "If you follow the WARN act against DOL guidance, you won't be reimbursed for costs."

 

Now there's a lot of things wrong with that, including several of the other points you brought up that I don't address (because I agree with them). But the original article you linked was still wildly inaccurate.

[Doc]

http://atr.org/five-...7#ixzz27rnmCgC9

 

 

 

.

But only the "rich" will pay more!!!!

 

As they slowly lower the standard of "rich" to mean anyone with a JOB!!!!!

 

:wallbash:

Like I said, the good stuff was implemented before the election and this stuff hits after it. Pathetic.

[B-Man]

[Wacka]

The jobs that the DOL "found" were in the cushions of the couch the guy in Wisconsin was screwing.

[Wacka]

FIFTY YEAR OLD MANURE SPREADER - $1

 

Fifty-year old manure spreader. Not sure of brand. Said to have been produced in Kenya. Used for a few years in Indonesia before being smuggled into the US via Hawaii. Of questionable pedigree. Does not appear to have ever been worked hard. Apparently, it was pampered by various owners over the years. It doesn't work very often, but when it does it can sling manure for amazing distances. I am hoping to retire the manure spreader this November. I really don't want it hanging around getting in the way. I would prefer a foreign buyer to relocate the manure spreader out of the country. I would be willing to trade it for a nicely framed copy of the United States Constitution. Location: Currently being stored in a big white house in Washington, D.C

[Duck_dodgers007]

Four more years!

[Duck_dodgers007]

 

 

But the original article you linked was still wildly inaccurate.

 

How?

[outsidethebox]

The sheep on both sides of the aisle are amusing. The mentality of "only (insert candidates name) can save this country! I am not sure if I am more appalled by the arrogance or the ignorance of supporters of either party. To put it more bluntly, this country is screwed!

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

what taxes are legit?

[Gary M]

The sheep on both sides of the aisle are amusing. The mentality of "only (insert candidates name) can save this country! I am not sure if I am more appalled by the arrogance or the ignorance of supporters of either party. To put it more bluntly, this country is screwed!

 

So pack your **** and get out.

[Jauronimo]

The sheep on both sides of the aisle are amusing. The mentality of "only (insert candidates name) can save this country! I am not sure if I am more appalled by the arrogance or the ignorance of supporters of either party. To put it more bluntly, this country is screwed!

Nice cop out. "Both parties suck!" while offering no solutions. How novel. Perhaps one day you will reach a point, as most adults do, where you acknowledge glaring flaws in the system but know that things can certainly get worse if we all choose to stay above the fray in some futile display of disdain.

[DC Tom]

 

 

How?

 

Which I already explained.

 

How in the world do you take care of yourself on a daily basis?

[outsidethebox]

 

 

So pack your **** and get out.

why don't you go !@#$ yourself dipshit!