Chef Jim Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So people will be working less so others can subsidize their healthcare. Who is going to subsidize their retirement seeing they'll be getting less social security due to the reduced income and of course less in their personal retirement plans? BTW that was a rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 So people will be working less so others can subsidize their healthcare. Who is going to subsidize their retirement seeing they'll be getting less social security due to the reduced income and of course less in their personal retirement plans? BTW that was a rhetorical question. Who would fund their personal retirement funds if they got sick and lost their jobs or were hit with massive medical bills like the old system had. Unfortunely there are costs for security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Who would fund their personal retirement funds if they got sick and lost their jobs or were hit with massive medical bills like the old system had. Unfortunely there are costs for security What, exactly, prevents them from being hit with massive medical bills in the "new' system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What, exactly, prevents them from being hit with massive medical bills in the "new' system? The new law gives them much better protection against them getting kicked off of insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The new law gives them much better protection against them getting kicked off of insurance And this point has precisely 'what' to do with the question he asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The new law gives them much better protection against them getting kicked off of insurance How many bankruptcies are caused by people getting kicked off their health insurance? And this point has precisely 'what' to do with the question he asked? In his defense, I asked him to be "exact," not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 How many bankruptcies are caused by people getting kicked off their health insurance? Let me predict the gatorman answer to this question. "Vanilla with pralines." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Who would fund their personal retirement funds if they got sick and lost their jobs or were hit with massive medical bills like the old system had. Unfortunely there are costs for security I will gladly subidize someone's retirement if they become sick and can't do it themselves. I will not, however, subsidize someone's retirement who chooses to become unemployed or underemployed to get government funded healthcare and in doing so greatly reduces their SS and/or personal retirment accounts. Do you understand the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Let me predict the gatorman answer to this question. "Vanilla with pralines." My guess is: "I love lamp!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I will gladly subidize someone's retirement if they become sick and can't do it themselves. I will not, however, subsidize someone's retirement who chooses to become unemployed or underemployed to get government funded healthcare and in doing so greatly reduces their SS and/or personal retirment accounts. Do you understand the difference? Rhetorical question I hope ? As to my experience; if any of my staff (at the Senior Center I manage) comes to me asking for less hours so they can qualify for Obamacare subsidies................. they will immediatly qualify......................because I have plenty of people lining up for employment and more hours. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Rhetorical question I hope ? . No serious question. Look who it was in response to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 No serious question. Look who it was in response to. That's my point. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 What the !@#$ does a professor of leisure studies do, anyway? Gym Teacher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 The Tyranny of Winter: The Left is at war with economic reality. by Kevin D. Williamson The Left is at war with economic reality. The intellectual poverty of the Left — which is also a moral poverty — is evident in the fact that its leaders are much more intensely interested in incomes at the top than those at the bottom. Examples are not difficult to come by: Senator Elizabeth Warren is visibly agitated by Jamie Dimon’s recent raise, the AFL-CIO maintains a website dedicated to executive compensation, avows that “at a certain point, you’ve made enough money,” et cetera ad nauseam. The entire rhetoric of inequality is simply an excuse to rage about incomes at the top, a generation’s worth of progressive shenanigans having failed to do much about those at the bottom. It is the case that incomes at the top have gone up while those in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined in real terms. It is not the case that incomes at the top have gone up because those in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined, nor is it the case that incomes in the middle and at the bottom have stagnated or declined because incomes at the top have gone up. There is a relationship between the two phenomena, but it is not the relationship that progressives imagine it to be. Neither the American tax code nor other features of our economic policy are notably generous to high-income and high-wealth people by the standards of the developed world. American businesses labor under the highest business income-tax rate in the world and one of the business tax codes most riddled with political favoritism. At 40 percent — compared with an OECD average of 25 percent — our business income-tax rate is nearly double that of Sweden, and more than twice that of Switzerland, which does not tax capital gains. Our top personal income-tax rate is higher than that of New Zealand, which manages to finance an effective national government out of the proceeds, and much higher than that of very competitive countries such as Singapore. Taken together, our tax and entitlement systems are about as redistributive as typical European welfare states. What is unusual about the United States is not that the rich are taxed so lightly but that the middle class is taxed so lightly, at least relative to European practice. {snip} Incomes are up at the top, stagnating or down elsewhere — but there is no “because” between those two facts. The cause is what some people call “globalization,” but is rightly called “progress,” which is of course what so-called progressives oppose. Nearly 1 billion people were lifted out of extreme poverty in 20 years. We have not abolished war and disease, but we have made great — what’s that word? — progress. More at the link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 4 incredibly revealing minutes on our commander in chief for those that haven't heard it. Redistribution in his own words. 4 incredibly revealing minutes on our commander in chief for those that haven't heard it. Redistribution in his own words from 2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 4 incredibly revealing minutes on our commander in chief for those that haven't heard it. Redistribution in his own words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM I think this was one of the talks he put on the iPod he gave to the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Spit Take! WashPost Reports Obama to Call for 'End to the Era of Austerity' Known As His Presidency As Goldfarb described the new White House budget document, "Obama will call for an an end to the era of austerity that has dogged his presidency..." Is there nobody at the Post who can properly understand that the largest deficits in American history have occurred in the past five years? Read more: http://newsbusters.o...d#ixzz2tynhEtEd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/02/26/new-home-sales-hit-highest-level-since-july-2008/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 http://www.foxbusine...ince-july-2008/ I think you're in the wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I think you're in the wrong thread. What, honey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts