Weinered again.......

Anthony Weiner admits to sending more lewd images, texts but vows to stay in mayor's race | Fox News

The Tea Party has sponsored a primary candidate to replace Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, mostly because the Senate is barely functioning, as opposed to the House, which is completely non-functional.

I like McCain the maverick.

Behind the Curtain: The new power triangle - POLITICO.com

Everyone of the sorry bastards that back McCain on his consorting with the enemy can diaf right alongside the sorry son of a bitch afaic.

And they can take any & every bastard that backs amnesty right along with 'em. They're worse than dead to me.

Word. Took long enough for him to come back.

Hey, who isn't?

Jon is kind of like a real-life Ron Swanson, anybody ever notice that? "Damn McCain for avoiding government gridlock and getting things done! I liked it better when nothing was happening!"

That article reads like McCain is running for something soon and arranged a fluff piece. We haven't actually had immigration reform, or speedy confirmation of judicial nominees, or a long-term budget deal yet. So what are we praising exactly?

Nothing > something bad

(Borrowing from Molson's handy laundry list) Confirming unfit nominees, giving amnesty to criminals that ought to be given 30 days to repatriate themselves to their rightful country or shot on sight, and approving unacceptable budgets are not positives.

This is how bad its gotten that someone willing to work with the other side is thought of as a heavenly event.

I've always pictured Dale Gribble for some reason

You're adorable.

FWIW, I was already in close to full-blown vein popping rage mode at the fluff pieces I'd on that p.o.s. and some of his cronies just shortly prior to dropping into the thread. I actually hit the FOFC to try to lower my b.p. instead of raise it ...and stumbled right onto the same subject.

I just don't see what's so great about being "willing to work with the other side" when the practical effect is the same as if they hadn't.

Kind of an interesting vote today whether to limit NSA funding. The Republicans support the president on this slightly more than Democrats, but there's a split in both parties.

Congressional Bills and Votes - NYTimes.com

Provisions in the post pre-clearance NC voting law. What do they all have in common?

Pretty funny stuff here. The IRS Employees Union is asking all workers to submit letters to Congress asking that they not be included as a group required to adhere to the new Obamacare laws/policies. Link contains the form letter they're asking them to submit.

National Treasury Employees Union -- Ask your members of Congress to oppose HR 1780.

Favorite part is where they tell them in bold letters not to use their government e-mails in their submission. You'd hate for Congress to see that you're lobbying for self-benefit. That just never happens.

This will get overturned by the courts, right?

Just another data point on premiums.

Maryland Touts Low Obamacare Health Insurance Premiums

Of course. The thing is it likely won't get overturned by the courts before it has a negative effect in at least 1 voting cycle, which is what they're banking on.

All of these laws and means to restrict voting rights are really shameful in this country given our history.

Amazing to see how common these are anymore. I'm working with a group as part of the development of our property. They have four other properties that they are working on right now in other locations. They just put out the following for the other four properties in a listing.


Basically, they're hiring all staff for their developments in a way to avoid Obamacare requirements. I'm actually writing up a budget for our facilities. The main staff consists of a couple full time managers and a few full time nurses. The rest of the staff is all 29 hour shift managers and maintenance staff.

Four years ago, I actually created a preliminary budget for the same project. All of the positions were full time positions. We never even considered hiring people for 29 hours a week. It's amazing how this bill has dumped low and medium wage hiring practices on their head.

This is no different than that a lot of work has been changed to temp work over the last decade to avoid paying any sort of benefits. This isn't new and isn't the "Obamacare" boogieman. The only difference is that instead of having to sneak in people under 32 hours before, it's 30.

SI

We never even considered a 32 hour employee under the previous budgets. We were willing to pay those benefits. This is a different beast IMO and I'm not the only one changing hiring practices in that regard.

Also, some note that it doesn't take effect until 50 employees. That doesn't really change things even if you're under that number. You don't want to ignore the policy if you only have 38 employees and then have to go back and change your employee deals later when you hit that 50 person limit during expansion. You have to assume that your business is going to continue to grow and plan accordingly. I've already done so with my current staff hirings because I know that I'm going to reach 50+ in roughly two years.

This. Even before Obamacare this was particularly widespread in the casinos out in Vegas and in the retail industry in general.

When I worked at Home Depot 13 years ago they were transitioning from a company that was known for hiring specialists in the field to work in the various departments, pay them 15-20 bucks/hr that they used to build their reputation. In that transition they only wanted to hire part time employees to cut costs because of slipping margins, and intense competition from Lowes and Menards. It's nothing new.

It has been happening all over retail for years now. Frankly, it's Capitalism at work.

Obamacare has to be giving momentum to something that's already been a trend though. I'm just not sure that's a bad thing. Isn't one of the not-spoken-about goals of Obamacare to be another step in the transition away from the old insurance-through-employers model? Small business owners like MBBF are kind of being used as a tool to bring more people into the fold of government healthcare.

I saw a chart a while ago about the decline of full-time jobs, and it's something that's been consistent and steady since about the 70s no matter who was president or no matter what policies were in place. I see it more as an inevitability than just a categorically terrible thing. In the future, more and more people will only work 20-30 hours, and they'll need to rely more on the government for things like healthcare Hey, maybe in the future we'll all work a little less and get more free stuff. That might not be the worst thing ever. If we can get past the idea that every adult has to have a full-time job at all times or else there's something wrong. Maybe are technology has advanced enough that we really just don't need that as a society. The concept of "employment" may just become more and more a luxury for the best and brightest who have the most to offer. It makes sense that our society and economy just doesn't need as many people slaving away hour after hour as we did in 1900. That's a good thing.

Or they'll be more likely to hold down two part-time jobs, as most of my current staff already does.

Do you think the government should regulate businesses and encourage/require them to hire only full-time people, even if that makes no sense for the bottom line of your business?

And who is making the decision to hire them part-time? Blame big bad government all you want but you're the one writing the checks.

SI

Personally, I think that most of the gov't programs should not be collected at the business level. Pay the people their wage and then allow them to budget accordingly for insurance or whatever else they want.

Obviously, full time only makes no sense at all.

I'm not hiring nearly as many part time if there aren't bad policies from 'big bad government' that encourage that line of thinking.

I thought you were responsible for your own actions. Are you the one who gets to choose whether to hire people full time or aren't you?

How is this anything other than an illustration of "I'm hiring part timers because I want more profit and using the government as an excuse as to why I'm doing it"?

SI

Ah, this is fun.

Market rate is the ultimate decider. I can't tell people I'm hiring at $5/hr just because I want to make money. I have to hire at the rate that someone else is hiring for a similar spot. Obviously, that ebbs and flows depending on industry, demand, supply, etc. But when you have government mandating costs, that definitely cuts into what you have left to pay the wage and/or how you hire people.

There's more costs associated with government programs than just the direct cost. It's going to be cheaper to do it in the free market if you allow it to happen.

You are correct if you moralize greed. If the market is sacrosanct and say profit is the ultimate driver, then, yes- there's no other conclusion you can reach.

SI

There are also a lot more 'costs' associated with part-time employment than just those paid by employers - in most countries* part-time employee's generally lean on state provisions for benefits (whether healthcare, income, pension or housing related) to make up for their lack of provision through their employer ...

I've seen many employers moan about being costs of employees being forced upon them - however I'd argue that its fairer they pay that then force those costs to be paid by the rest of society just so they can reap a profit.

*This is definitely the case in England, I've heard that its also the case in America as Walmart employ part-time specifically to avoid having to provide healthcare etc. - however I have less knowledge regarding the US side of things.

You mean socialize the loss, privatize the profits, and then complain about the government?

SI

That's why I'm not sure this isn't an intended part of Obamacare. It's just kind of a funny mechanic, to use the MBBFs of the world to push more people into government healthcare and other government benefits. MBBF thinks he's giving the middle finger to the government, but in reality, he's making the government bigger, and strengthening arguments for increasing the minimum wage.

I can summarize your statement by saying 'hold people accountable for their own actions and allow them to reap the benefits of their hard work', but of course that immediately gets sent into the 'you aren't interested in the common good' pile, which isn't the case.

There is no reasonable nor justifiable argument for that.

None.

I agree with accountability - that's why I believe in corporations paying taxes to the government of the countries they operate within rather than dodging their responsibilities.

Why should corporations pay taxes - simply put they rely on the countries government subsidised infrastructure (education, road infrastructure, policing etc.) and as such should contribute towards its upkeep and future.

(I also believe in corporations not being subsidised to employ people when they're reaping huge profits already - ie. Oil corporations, Walmart etc.)

If the Administration was more devious, I'd say they were trying to insure that Single Payer Healthcare was going to happen within the next 20 years due to disapproval of business tactics in the wake of Obamacare. Because it really does seem that this is going to backfire on businesses and have people demand a 'public option' on exchanges (when middle class folk will have to go on the exchanges, then all of a sudden they'll be all for it - when its just seen as the poor's alone, then its socialism, when its then, then its for fairness ;)) and the rest.

I am mixed about this but leaning towards Obama not doing this. I guess to me it depends on how bad the pensions would be hit and would prefer the upper end pensioners to take the hit more than the average joe. The precedence would be scary.

Can someone explain if state workers typically get pension vs social security as alluded to below?

Detroit bankruptcy: Retirees ask Obama, Congress for pension help - Encore - MarketWatch

Maybe the other AFL–CIO members should bail them out. Or GM.

Why is that?

I don't see any culpability from the pensioners especially if investing in pension plan is the norm vs social security for state employees.

I don't understand (maybe no one knows yet) the degree of reduction. 5-10% sure, if it becomes 50% its a different story for me.

The story states pension average of $30K. I don't find this excessive. However, I'm willing to bet there are some upper end state pensioners getting much more, so if possible, would prefer to target them first.

If everybody was promised a pension based on the level of effort they put into their careers and all agreed, why punish those who did more?

If you look at a list of a city's highest-paid employers most are usually veteran police, firefighters, and education administrators. And I doubt there's enough making even six figures to wipe out Detriot's debt-problem if you disproportionately went after them. And there's something a little off-putting about treating a career public servant like an evil CEO or something. The difference between well-paid and low-paid public employees is a lot less than it is in the private sector.

Whether right or wrong, bigger bang for the buck by targeting the upper end pensioners.

I think the argument is not what is contractually agreed to but who can do with less to lessen the pain that don't have as much.

I think you are right, I have not been able to find info on the count/spread of the pensions other than the $30K in the article ...

There are some outliers, but probably not enough to make a significant difference.

If it's all one team, then everybody should do with less equally.