- Joined
- Mar 14, 2012
- Messages
- 29,135
- Reaction score
- 1,520
- Location
- US, California - federalist
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That sounds about like you and your solutions. How fitting that you used the words bondo and cover it. This is just what this idiot in the White is doing any you seem to approve of it.
The real issue is that people like you are a threat to freedom in this country. It's one thing to be fooled and vote for Obama. It's another thing to see the direction he is taking us and approve of it. The former is being naïve, the latter is being a danger to our freedoms!
I don't mind ending our expensive, wars crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.
Except my belief in their legitimacy doesn't hinge on the administration at the reigns. Your suspicions are based one exactly that :shrug:
No. You're over blowing this by trying to take away what i have already proven:
that big business is making unprecedented profits while not creating jobs. And you're are also over blowing this Affordable Care Act too when it comes to small businesses. Take note from Forbes:
By the way, it isn't the people's role to provide big businesses with tax cuts that they can undoubtedly afford, too. :roll:
Probably so that those workers can actually live in that state comfortably.
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.Wonder why it is that California which has among the highest cost of living in the nation doesn't have McDonald's paying its workers $16 per hour?
I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:...The western North Dakota town of 18,000 people is the most expensive place in the United States for renters, according to a survey by Apartment Guide, an online website for apartment hunters.
A 700-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment costs an average of $2,394 a month. Those looking for a little more space could shell out $4,500 a month for a three-bedroom, three-bathroom apartment, according to the survey...
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.
Maybe you didn't like Bloomberg. Here, try ABC News
I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:
That's cool. Go ahead and refute them. And they're not just people; (you say that like it's a blog or something. :roll: ) they're news agencies.Your OPINIONS and the opinions of the people you keep linking too can be easilly refuted if you look local economies on a State level.
They sure would if they had fracking going on.If your generic left wing economic rhetoric where even marginally true, States like California and Michigan would have huge economic growth to show for it and wouldn't be dealing with hundreds of Billions in unfunded liabillities.
I'm sorry that you didn't read the Forbes article. You and Conservative have a lot in common.As far as the ACA NOT hurting Companies big or small ? Thats just unsupported Nonsense.
Maybe you would like to bring in a "right-wing" economist? You have that right.And no, some left wing economist whos writing for team Obama doesn't count as "proof ".
I can't read the Forbes article for you.The ACA has had an enormous negative effect on our economy for the last 4 years, and will continue to drag this Obama economy down until at least 2016.
Well I guess we have nothing else to discuss. Have a pleasant evening.I don't need to read Bloomberg or anything from ABC news to sell me on free enterprise, capitalism, low cost of living generating a thriving economy and strong economic growth
Well I guess we have nothing else to discuss. Have a pleasant evening.
Because the people in California are not as crazy as those folks in N. Dakota when it comes to fracking, maybe? Maybe those folks in California do not wish to sell their state to desolation for present comforts? Seriously. You never read that Bloomberg article did you. The infrastructure alone is going to the dogs and crime is high.
Maybe you didn't like Bloomberg. Here, try ABC News
I would hope that considering all the costs of living Micky Ds would have to pay about somewhere close to twenty bucks an hour. How else could you live? :roll:
First, those were two questions. Secondly, if I were to tell you why and eventually show you evidence in form of links, (Something of which you will not read.) I fear that we will both go on and on to nowhere and, I, too, wish to enjoy my evening also. So with that. Have a good night.Thank you, plan on doing just that. Just one last question why is it you still believe anything out of this Administration or articles that reference data coming from an organization that takes its information from a partisan Congress that created ACA and benefits from discouraged workers in the official unemployment numbers?
As for the higher cost of living in North Dakota, why is that a problem for you but not a problem for you in California where 1.5 plus million citizens make $8 and hour? Supply in demand, the high wages in N. Dakota will be attracting new housing and more competition which will drive down prices.
You have a point but only if it was cleaning up after, and I would want that money in my hands beforehand.If you understood entrepreneurship you would realie what a great opportunity this might be to build apartment buildings, or other necessities in the service industry. If I were a younger man I'd be there in a heartbeat.
That's cool. Go ahead and refute them. And
they're not just people; (you say that like it's a blog or something. :roll: ) they're news agencies.
They sure would if they had fracking going on.
I'm sorry that you didn't read the Forbes article. You and Conservative have a lot in common.
Maybe you would like to bring in a "right-wing" economist? You have that right.
I can't read the Forbes article for you.
I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?That article is dated 2012, and it SPECULATING on ACA "benefits" that might effect small businesses and Corporations.
Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?A poll last year found that 42 percent of small businesses had put off hiring because of the ACA and 20 percent of Corporations and small Businesses polled said they have proactively reduced the number of employees because of the ACA.
In the same poll another 38 percent of businesses said they were holding back on expanding because of ObamaCare.
I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.Plus California is the Nations 4th highest Oil Producer.
Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:You're just another low information left wing ideologue spreading disinformation and getting your ass handed to you in the process by Conservatives on a online Political Forum.
Bob N;1063123297]I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?
Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?
I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.
Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:
I didn't see anything about it speculating the facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?
Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?
I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.
Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:
Here is what the liberals want to ignore and want the public to forget
Employment numbers
I didn't see anything about it speculating the
facts as when it was written and just because it was written in 2012, so what, big deal. Does it have an expiration date on it?
Last year? OK. I guess you can only discuss old info, huh? Got the link to that?
I'll betcha they would be kicking butt with their economy if they wouldn't frown on fracking, huh. Good for CA. for telling those companies no.
Except I do offer links when I discuss things. :2wave:
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.All you have apparently is your one 2012 article thats discusses possible future " benefits " of the ACA, which apparently is more relevent than a 2013 Poll that showed exactly how the ACA was affecting business prior to its full implementation.
42 percent of them admitted to putting off new hiring, and 20 percent of them had already laid people off because of ObamaCare.
Thr current state of the Obama economy should be enough to convince any intelligent person that the Democrats are absolutely in over their heads and that the ACA is continuing to have a terrible impact on our economy.
I'm guessing you've decided to blame this extended recession on something thats completley disconnected from reality.
Only because a objective analysis of the economy contradicts your political lean.
Thats pretty pathetic and childish if you ask me.
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.
And you still have your usual political bravado, useless chiding and no link.
Why do you require a link to show that increasing direct labor costs, via PPACA mandates, would have a negative affect on hiring?
Why do you suppose that Obama decided to postpone the employer mandate since it was "the law of the land", would promote more hiring and was good for the economy?
Paying more for direct labor costs while not getting any increase in production from it does not make good business sense.
Because it's not fact
The employer mandate was not postponed. Only the reporting requirements were postponed, which makes it impossible to determine who is adhering to the mandate.
Not a fact
How exactly do you know it isn't a fact? How many lies does this Administration have to tell your or how many inaccurate estimates does the CBO have to give before you stop believing what you are told and do your own DD? How many changes has Obama made to the Congressional Law passed and how accurate has his predictions been? Why should any business believe what they are being told by this Administration. Don't expect an answer but have to ask?
Pelosi and the other Dems are now on record saying that the employer madate will not be postponed again, like it was just postponed recently:
Democrats fought back Sunday against claims from a former Obama aide that the White House might delay Obamacare’s employer mandate.
House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi called the mandate, which requires businesses with between 50 and 100 employees to provide health insurance for workers or face a penalty, “integral.”
and later in the article:
The comments come after former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed that the mandate, which has already been delayed twice, would be “one of the first things to go,” as different facets of Obama’s signature health care law continued to run into hurdles.
“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law,” Gibbs told a trade group during a speech last week
Time will tell how honest they're being.
Democrats say White House won
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?