Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Definition of Failure : Obama repeals Obamcare


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#91 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 07 January 2014 - 11:42 PM

I don't understand what you're asking for because I don't understand the utility of the answer so I thought that if you gave an answer, I could work backwards.


You're the one that stepped up and thought you'd give answering DD's question a shot. If you simply cannot provide an answer, then that's fine. It's a complicated question that some folks are content with saying "more" or "less" and leaving it at that, in spite of the fact that they never really provided any kind of an answer.

That's not an unreasonable request unless you don't have an answer.

Again, "no, u" isn't an answer.

I gave the oft hated reason poor people get tax rebates because I thought it illustrated the fact that Ronald Reagan signed a bill that not only exempted poors from paying taxes but actually incentivized work via direct transfer payments.


Which is all well and good, but has zero to do with the question: "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

So you don't want that. That's dodging. OK. What do you want Bob? What does an answer look like in your mind? I've never shied away from a conversation and typically write about a thousand words too many when I do. So why is it difficult to get an answer to your own question?


There are a couple of ways you could answer this - and it would depend on your individual philosophy as to how taxes should be assessed and paid. You could say that people should pay X% per year based on $Y of income. X% per year based off of $Y Net Worth. You could use either (or both) of those on some sort of sliding-scale (X% for the first $Y, 2X% for the next $2Y, etc.) You could say folks should pay $Y per-head flat rate. You could go with a consumption-based tax where it's X% per $Y spent. It could be a production-tax, like a VAT Tax. There's all kinds of possibilities. It comes down to the question DD asked - "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

It's a very complicated question - and I don't purpose to have the exact answer (though I do have a few thoughts that feed into the answer)... but then, I never asked for the answer. DD did. And, about a month ago, someone else asked the same question, and a certain someone on this forum jumped down that person's throat for asking the question because blah, blah, trolling, blah, blah, blah. I was just curious if that same someone was going to speak up when DD asked the same question.

By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#92 Jruth

Jruth

    No trite shit crew gamer bro

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:34 AM

 

 

And where did the baker acquire the capital for the business? Conjuring out of thin air? Are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs founded their corporations from nothing but their sole brains and spare parts in some shitty garage in the ghetto? | I'm making a distinction between "personal usage" and "benefit" instead of using "usage" as a blanket term to confuse you. They're both "usage" in a general sense, so we agree that the business owner should pay more? I know this sounds pretty basic, but you screw up some pretty basic stuff.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please, fill me in.

 

Yeah the baker should pay more, one of the beauties of the flat tax is that all that profit he's "hoarding" he would end up paying more than if he had less profit and wasn't "greedy", as the caricature you like so much. You make 100 dollars you put in 10, you make 1000 you put in 100. It is more complicated than that, however.

 

 

 

I didn't realize that DARPA was a private company with private funding. If I was going to say that Gore created the internet, I would've just said Gore created the internet by writing and compiling code with Tommy Lee Jones in Texas.

The manufacturing industry of the US was the only one left that was worth a damn after the rest of the world was bombed to hell and back. Last man standing on a shitpile eventually became the dominant industrial base of the world while everyone else was rebuilding? Nah...that sounds like pure bullshit, amirite? 

 


If I remember correctly the military's original version of the internet is nothing like it is now. It was used as a form of communication through the military. If you wanna claim we wouldn't have the internet, which is a fairly simple concept all things considered; now or even 10 years ago without government I won't buy that as a solid argument. That's a logical fallacy I can't remember the name of.

Private over government any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

 

Weren't we the wealthiest nation before WW2? That had nothing to do with freedom and free market ideals? Getting back to the point. Do you wanna claim back then, if we were socialist, we would even have a manufacturing industry? Or the economic boom after the war, if we were socialist? The UK was bombed, Japan was bombed. Those two CAPITALIST countries came back strong. How long does it take for socialism to take effect? When will we see the Utopian effects.

 


 

 

Japan has nation wide socialized medicine and fees are set by the government. So uh, yea. 

 

Now what does that have to do with advancements in technology or the Sciences? And as we know America develops the best medicine and medical research than anyone else, that other countries steal from us.


Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#93 willardhaven

willardhaven

    Thief of Life

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 01:35 AM

By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?

Didn't Ronald Reagan increase per capita spending more than Obama?


PaulManda.png


#94 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:20 AM

So, as long as every president increases spending by less than previous presidents, it's all good?
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#95 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 02:37 AM

You know Adam Smith was pro progressive taxation? Can you nameva country with a different system?

Not seeing a response.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#96 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 08 January 2014 - 10:22 PM

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please, fill me in.

I don't think I will unless you're willing to pay me write a few thousand words on history and theory of money.
 

Yeah the baker should pay more, one of the beauties of the flat tax is that all that profit he's "hoarding" he would end up paying more than if he had less profit and wasn't "greedy", as the caricature you like so much. You make 100 dollars you put in 10, you make 1000 you put in 100. It is more complicated than that, however.

Of course it's more complicated than that because of a concept called marginal utility, which is why a flat tax will never really work. 
 

If I remember correctly the military's original version of the internet is nothing like it is now. It was used as a form of communication through the military. If you wanna claim we wouldn't have the internet, which is a fairly simple concept all things considered; now or even 10 years ago without government I won't buy that as a solid argument. That's a logical fallacy I can't remember the name of.
Private over government any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Do you understand the concept of evolution or do you prefer the term "EVILution?"

Btw, most things are "simple concepts" once they've been figured out. If you tried to explain how a microwave heats up food to someone in the 18th century, you'd probably be committed to an asylum.
 
 

Weren't we the wealthiest nation before WW2? That had nothing to do with freedom and free market ideals? Getting back to the point. Do you wanna claim back then, if we were socialist, we would even have a manufacturing industry? Or the economic boom after the war, if we were socialist? The UK was bombed, Japan was bombed. Those two CAPITALIST countries came back strong. How long does it take for socialism to take effect? When will we see the Utopian effects.

I'd say that African slaves and Native Americans would disagree about the "freedom" part of your comment. Nor would all of the people that died due to lack of regulations during the Industrial Revolution have much good to say about "free market ideals."

Would you call the USSR communist or socialist? Did they have any industry?

As for the UK and Japan, did they do it all on their own?

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the period between WW1 and WW2 because you don't seem to know jack about it.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your working definitions of capitalism and socialism.
 

Now what does that have to do with advancements in technology or the Sciences? And as we know America develops the best medicine and medical research than anyone else, that other countries steal from us.

Who do you think pays for those advances and where most of those advances come from? If your answer are anything but the government paying universities to do research, you're sadly mistaken.
dohdough.png


"Speaking of which, there's another elitist prick that argues constantly on the Politics forums by the name of dohdough. He's a complete douche, but at least he keeps his posts in that cesspool of useless opinions. He gets my runner-up nomination."


Thanks for the nomination for the Most Memorable CAG Villan 2012, Blade!

#97 RPGNinja

RPGNinja

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 01:52 AM

Even though I am against Obamacare it is good we got a discussion going on this topic because it is literally one of the most important issues currently and could really shape the foundation of the country going forward (IMO for the worst)

I will have some more talking points later I am just currently in the middle of a hectic work week.

#98 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 03:39 AM

Instead of cut and paste how about your own opinions? Or better yet facts and real world examples.


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#99 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 04:03 AM

Not seeing a response.

Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread. 



#100 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:19 PM

You're the one that stepped up and thought you'd give answering DD's question a shot. If you simply cannot provide an answer, then that's fine. It's a complicated question that some folks are content with saying "more" or "less" and leaving it at that, in spite of the fact that they never really provided any kind of an answer.

Again, "no, u" isn't an answer.


Which is all well and good, but has zero to do with the question: "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"


There are a couple of ways you could answer this - and it would depend on your individual philosophy as to how taxes should be assessed and paid. You could say that people should pay X% per year based on $Y of income. X% per year based off of $Y Net Worth. You could use either (or both) of those on some sort of sliding-scale (X% for the first $Y, 2X% for the next $2Y, etc.) You could say folks should pay $Y per-head flat rate. You could go with a consumption-based tax where it's X% per $Y spent. It could be a production-tax, like a VAT Tax. There's all kinds of possibilities. It comes down to the question DD asked - "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

It's a very complicated question - and I don't purpose to have the exact answer (though I do have a few thoughts that feed into the answer)... but then, I never asked for the answer. DD did. And, about a month ago, someone else asked the same question, and a certain someone on this forum jumped down that person's throat for asking the question because blah, blah, trolling, blah, blah, blah. I was just curious if that same someone was going to speak up when DD asked the same question.

By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?

And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for. 

 

 

Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread. 

I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:

 

Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.  

 

Thoughts?


Posted Image

#101 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 09 January 2014 - 12:25 PM

And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for.


Then it seems to me that you should call out the guy who asked the question to begin with.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#102 egofed

egofed

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 January 2014 - 03:29 AM

I think I was the one who asked for an "acceptable" top level tax rate. It amazes me the dodges that this question gets in response. How about a more direct yes or no scenario? Is it ok for the gov't to take 50% of your income in taxes? 70%? 90%? 100% if you make over a certain amount? We can discuss details after the yes or no is delivered. Property taxes and estate taxes are criminal if you ask my opinion also.  

 

Getting back to healthcare, I had a new record set last night. A 26 year old lady living in gov't subsidized housing called 911 for her pregnancy. She has six living children and two abortions she told me about. This new kid will be her seventh child. Doh and I disagree that this is abuse of our welfare, SNAP, etc systems. Luckily I was driving the engine so I did not have to ride to the hospital with her selfish, ignorant ass. I don't want to hate anybody, but how can some people be so evil and irresponsible as to abuse living beings like that? These kids have pretty much zero chance of escaping the generational poverty/welfare cycle. If Melissa Perry is right, and kids are all of ours, then when do I get to step in and teach them morals and a work ethic? Do we continue to pay for people who continually act against their and our best interests?

 

On a brighter note, my homeless friend, Mary, came to see me at the station last night. I set up her "Obamaphone" for her and a retired FF friend has let her move in for a while. The forms and paperwork that I have helped her fill out are super redundant and complicated for non PC literate people. A new housing program is opening for the homeless, but sign ups are available for only one day during a 3 hour window. How do we make this system better?



#103 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:28 AM

I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:

 

Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.  

 

Thoughts?

So you like to randomly pick on people? Now how do you think a libertarian republican feels about Obamacare?



#104 speedracer

speedracer

    Get off my lawn

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 January 2014 - 11:18 AM

So you like to randomly pick on people? Now how do you think a libertarian republican feels about Obamacare?

...I just thought perhaps you and I could have a conversation. 

 

Ya'll are shit.


Posted Image

#105 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 10 January 2014 - 12:50 PM

Not seeing a response,...

Maybe in a few more days...


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell

#106 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:29 PM

I think I was the one who asked for an "acceptable" top level tax rate.


I don't recall who asked it in an earlier thread, but I remember it being asked and a certain someone blasting them (you?) for even daring to ask. Which is why it was funny that DD asked the same question in this thread and not a single person calls him out on it... One person even makes a half-assed attempt at answering it, realizes that he doesn't really want to, then calls me names... when I wasn't even the one who asked to begin with.

It's amazing, really.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#107 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:36 PM

I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:
 
Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.  
 
Thoughts?


I know this wasn't asked to me, but I'd like to give some thoughts on it.

First, why is the government going out of the way to "help" businesses? Even more so, certain types of businesses? Isn't that something that we pretty much all agree on - that government shouldn't be picking and choosing which businesses to give special favors to?

Second, why is health insurance even remotely something that a business should be forced to provide? Combined with the fact that any insurance tied to your employment is pretty crappy (because, if you find yourself without that job...), we should be encouraging the system to go to a less employer-based health insurance model.

Finally, you said "health care". You meant "health insurance". Most employers of any size do not provide any kind of "health care". Which is the biggest issue with the Affordable Care Act - is that it pretty much isn't designed to do anything about health care and is mostly designed around health insurance. One is designed to help you. The other is a middle-man that gets in between you and the thing that's supposed to help you.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#108 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 11 January 2014 - 02:09 AM

...I just thought perhaps you and I could have a conversation. 

 

Ya'll are shit.

How can I have a decent conversation with a tool? So far every liberal I have engaged seems to get his/her panties in the bunch on this forum. Emotion rules over logic. Your comment proves it. 



#109 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 11 January 2014 - 05:40 PM

Ya know, it's funny that Regan gets brought up by left-leaning folks so often. More-so than right-leaning folks. Like this gem:

We will remember record deficit spending, nearly doubling the national debt in 8 years. Shattering the reckless legacy of spending and its damage by Reagan.


"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#110 RPGNinja

RPGNinja

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 January 2014 - 09:39 PM

Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.

Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

The market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses. (In other words this was just one big huge waste of time and you were better off under your old plan)


Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation.

#111 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:43 PM

Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.

Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

The market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses. (In other words this was just one big huge waste of time and you were better off under your old plan)


Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation.

In the days of google you'd think people wouldn't copy an online article word for word and not even bother to cite it implying it's their own work...

 

http://www.businessi...gning-up-2014-1

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.

Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

Critics of Obama's Affordable Care Act say the market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses.



#112 RPGNinja

RPGNinja

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:09 AM

Uh dude.. in case you have not noticed I have been quoting articles all throughout this thread. Even my first post started out with an article. Granted I forgot to put the quotes around it but my comment on the article is the big paragraph below it HENCE why I took MANY spaces before the comment started. Everything that has been said that article is a fact regardless so why are you so uptight?

So since you are obviously won't comment on it let me post my reply to the article yet again.

"Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation."

#113 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:00 PM

So plagarism is no big deal if you do it a lot? Or is it that plagarism is a-ok if at least one third of the work is your own commentary.

See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you. Not to mention the article itself started with "NEW YORK (Reuters)" which you would have had to have left out as well.

Extra spaces? There's one extra line break, how in the world does one extra line break point to a citation. Even if you never went to college, high school teaches you to cite your work.

#114 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:12 PM

See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you.


Funny. For someone who's all about citing sources, you'd think he'd realize that the ORIGINAL source for this article (Reuters, as RvB pointed out) doesn't automatically tag a copy/paste with a "read more..." tag.

But hey, it's so much more fun to attack someone based off how they cite their sources on some random internet video gaming website than to actually discuss the topic at hand.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#115 RPGNinja

RPGNinja

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 January 2014 - 10:13 PM

So plagarism is no big deal if you do it a lot? Or is it that plagarism is a-ok if at least one third of the work is your own commentary.

See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you. Not to mention the article itself started with "NEW YORK (Reuters)" which you would have had to have left out as well.

Extra spaces? There's one extra line break, how in the world does one extra line break point to a citation. Even if you never went to college, high school teaches you to cite your work.


How is it plagiarizing anyway if you truly believe that was my intent? I am not writing some college thesis where I need a Works Cited page. I am proving why Obamacare is a bad plan. And everything in that article is factual anyway so its not like I am making it up. If you even bothered to read my post you can clearly see when I started to offer my opinion and the stuff before sounded like a news story. It is not my fault you can't read correctly.

So rather than focus on the topic at hand you have to keep sidetracking everyone because you can't admit yourself it is a disastrous plan for America.

And just so you know I didn't even get that article from Business Insider. I got it from Yahoo. It is all over the internet just like when an AP article gets shared around.

Since you are so fixated on plagiarism don't forget your hero and savior Obama was caught up in that mess as well.

http://www.plagiaris...iarism-scandal/

Which is kind of a big deal since you know he is the PRESIDENT, and I am just a guy on a forum pointing out how horrible his ideas are.

#116 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 22 January 2014 - 02:29 PM

Target is just the latest large retailer to shift part-time employees off company-provided insurance plans and toward the online exchanges. Large businesses like Sears/Kmart, Petco, Home Depot and Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse) have all recently announced similar changes in health care coverage.

 

http://consumerist.c...time-employees/


"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#117 RPGNinja

RPGNinja

    CAG in Training

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 19 February 2014 - 05:34 AM

http://consumerist.c...time-employees/


You can thank Obamacare for that, it literally is ruining businesses and it is unaffordable.

#118 Msut77

Msut77

    Occam's Shank

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 25 February 2014 - 03:01 AM

http://www.salon.com...ealth_benefits/


wahhhhh noone helped me so they must not help anyone. - knoell