November 9, 2012

Friday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (110912)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.




  1. President Obama’s statement on the fiscal cliff and tax rates, Nov. 9, 2012 (Full Transcript)

    Obama’s so called new plan is a regurgitation of the same tired class warfare rhertoric we have come to expect. He claims he is not wedded to any one detail then contradicts himself shortly there after laying down his marker on increasing taxes on small business owners, i.e. those making more than $250k. He claims his approach has been validated by his re-election (with 9 million fewer votes than in 2008.) He then goes on to mention that on January 1 there will be a tax increase on everyone and it will be the fault of the GOP if they won’t agree with his plan. So much for compromise and reconciliation.

    So GOP, and you had better be listening closely because in the next 2 months you are going to be outplayed.

    Obama and Reid are never ever going to agree to any budget deal without a major tax increase on Small Business owners. This was determined long ago when you foolishly agreed to the fiscal cliff. The fiscal cliff was their real position all along and they suckered you. You dunces believed no one would commit such a cut back on their special interest groups under the rubic 1/2 defense and 1/2 social spending. You were wrong, their plan is to jettison their campaign supporters having gotten their money/votes and then promptly blame the GOP for not being reasonable. Thus they absolve themselves of blame to their supporters saying the GOP was unreasonable and the dupes will believe it.

    In order to not have the fiscal cliff the GOP would have to concede on every issue to make it worth the Dems while and you know the country can’t afford that in terms of national security. The GOP has seriously misread the Democrats on the national defense issue as the fiscal cliff is exactly where the Democrats want to be on funding for the military.

    Comment by dscott — November 9, 2012 @ 2:32 pm

  2. Dividends: U.S. Deeper in Recessionary Territory

    If we then set the value of ten companies per month that act to cut their dividends as the threshold at which a recession in the U.S. is likely to exist, we find that the U.S. economy first dipped into recessionary territory in May 2012, exited briefly in July 2012, and re-entered more deeply into that recessionary territory again in August, going deeper in each month since.

    So no matter what you might hear in the mainstream media or from the White House, this isn’t a situation that developed overnight because of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy or the so-called “fiscal cliff”. Recessionary forces have been at work in the U.S. economy for many months now….

    Given the MSM blackout on the current recession guess who gets the blame when the story finally breaks? So failing any agreement with Obama, the GOP will be blamed for initiating a recession IF you are now not willing to come out and say we are currently in a recession. Congrats GOP leadership, you are screwed and so is the country. After all, you failed to call the MSM on meaning of gasoline prices falling when they meekly said it was due to a lack of consumption during the summer. Why does gasoline consumption drop during a normal time of peak consumption…RECESSION.

    Comment by dscott — November 9, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

  3. 2013, the year of the mass layoffs, here’s why:

    You broke it, You bought it.

    All these layoffs are because the 2014 Obamacare fines will be calculated using 2013 full-time employee numbers over 50. All these hour reductions down to 29 hours? The bill redefines “full-time” as 30 hours of work a week.

    (See below the fold for further explanations.)

    So, if you have > 50 employees and they are full-time, you as a business have to provide health-care for them or be fined up to a max of $3000 per employee. Now, health-care insurance in the US for a business costs a lot of money, generally more than the $3k/year/employee.

    Yeah, an why is it I have to get this explanation from a Canadian website????? MSM didn’t bother to tell the public about what happens in 2013, I wonder why???? LYING BY OMISSION.

    Here we can also blame the GOP for not making an issue out of it during the campaign.

    Comment by dscott — November 9, 2012 @ 3:55 pm

  4. Obama-2 and the Middle East

    Remember those remarks Obama made to Medvedev about after the election????
    Yalta Conference to reconvene shortly. Obama, Putin and Mullahs to divide world into self serving spheres. US gets North and South America, Russia gets Europe, Mullahs get Middle East and China gets Asia.

    You heard it here first!

    Comment by dscott — November 9, 2012 @ 4:13 pm

  5. dscott, I’m not clear on whether this is going to happen in 2013 or 2014. Lots of cos will do it in 2013 to get ready for 2014, IMO, like Kroger.

    Comment by Tom — November 9, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

  6. #5, All these layoffs are because the 2014 Obamacare fines will be calculated using 2013 full-time employee numbers over 50.

    If you have 50 or greater employees in 2013, in January 2014 ObamaCare begins via the IRS fining the business $3000 a head. What remains to be clarified is does the business get dinged based on:

    a) the January 2013 employee count,
    b) the year’s average employee count or
    c) the December 2013 employee count or
    d) the sum total of all individuals employed throughout the year or
    e) some combination of all the above

    OR is this count yet to be determined just to stick it to every business based on some arbitrary compliance %. No one seems to know, how convenient politically. Meaning a business has to figure the absolute worst case scenario to plan around.

    Add to this concern of the $3000 fine, is this a per month fine for the entire year of 2014 per employee? Pro-rated for the months of employment in 2013? etc…

    The same issues exist for determining part time employees. Given Kroger’s decision to cap everyone at 28 hours, one might suspect their concern is centered on a part timer being considered a full timer for the above employee count based even on ONE WEEK out of 52.

    Of course the scariest scenario is d) for the employer. A high employee turn over business such as a restaurant that averages say 30 employees may employ 50 or more individuals during the course of the year even though at any one week they employ 30. Meaning that such a business must bring the full time employee count to an absolute minimum to run the business while making sure no one part time employee EVER makes more than 29 hours a week.

    Due to the uncertainty involved and the huge financial bill, 2013 is going to be a very bad year for employment.

    Comment by dscott — November 10, 2012 @ 9:35 am

  7. I was musing some more on Kroger’s 28 hour max per employee. Why 28 and not 29 hours per week? This led me to a more pernicious determination of what will be considered a full time employee. What IF Kroger has gotten wind of ObamaCare people’s intention that a full time employee is one who works 8 hours plus a day versus a 30 hours for a full week?

    Alternatively and more innocently, IF employers limit employees to 29 hours per week that means a 4 day work week of 7 hours/per day meaning they can’t work 7.5 hours plus 1/2 hr lunch for 4 days but only two. This becomes burdensome on the payroll end.

    However, with the 28 hr determination, one thing will certainly play out, while less people will be working full time 30 + hours/ week, eventually those manhours have got to be staffed. It could turn out by the end of 2013 or 2014 when an economic recovery of sorts starts eventually, unemployment will drop because of the swelling ranks of part time employees. In a perverse outcome, there will be a full employment economy of a permanent peasantry.

    Instead of equality of outcome, the work force will be divided into the extremes of the majority who are permanently dependent upon government and those full time workers whom are management only types running the companies and working for the government. Which sounds awful like liberal paradise. (pun intended)

    Sen. Mary Landrieu made an interesting assertion before the law’s passage regarding the cost and the numbers of people employed, I can’t find it now but I made the observation that after doing the math, it was based on minimum wage.

    Comment by dscott — November 10, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  8. I found the Mary Landrieu reference I made back in 2009:

    The Liberal False Choice

    Nationwide, small firms will spend $156 billion on health premiums this year. In place of those high premiums, small business owners could employ 10 million additional workers—the entire state of Michigan—at minimum wage for a year.


    The central assertion offered to the public to accept ObamaCare is the idea billions of dollars will be saved if their so called Reform is passed and furthermore those savings would create 10 million new jobs. In fact, isn’t that similar to what we hear from President Obama? Healthcare Reform will create jobs and is essential to get the economy growing again? Let’s examine what she said; firstly small businesses spend $156 billion annually on health insurance premiums. I’m not sure where this figure is derived, however, let’s just accept for the moment that as accurate for the sake of argument without passing judgment on it or doing lots of research to verify or discredit it. Then she goes on to make the claim IF, in place of spending that money on health insurance small businesses could employ 10 million people at minimum wage. Her math is correct, $156 billion divided by 10 million people do indeed equate to minimum wage of $7.35 an hour. However, this is where the lie occurs, you notice small businesses in order to have the money to create these jobs would have to drop health insurance altogether, not merely saving on some of the premiums.

    I frequently find liberal math an exercise in clever misdirection; it’s like a who-done-it crime scenario. So what Senator Landrieu is advocating is the government would be picking up the tab for 10 million low wage workers in addition to all the workers who would lose their employer sponsored health insurance in order to create those jobs. But let’s not dwell on the fact that the point of ObamaCare as Senator Landrieu understands it is about getting rid of the insurance companies to have the government take over this function in the healthcare system. We shouldn’t waste our time on the obvious because liberals have already admitted to this before the election, it’s old news and they just don’t want to talk about it publicly. Let’s also not dwell on the liberal math where the money for people’s healthcare has to come from somewhere else if small businesses are expected to create those 10 million jobs they would not spend on employer sponsored healthcare. That’s misdirection by liberals for government having to raise the entire amount (in taxes) no longer spent by small business.

    Comment by dscott — November 10, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

  9. #6, thx for clarifying. I suspect that a lot of employers are going to be caught flat-footed.

    Your points on Kroger may be valid, but I think they’re allowing themselves a cushion. And what if they acquire another company in the meantime?

    Comment by Tom — November 10, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

  10. #9, In Kroger’s position as a larger employer they already know they would be subject in any event so as I suggested a bifurcation of those who work into the management class of full time workers versus the peasant class of part timers. It matters not to them how big they get since only those who will work full time will be managers. Thus full timers which will only be managers will have their employer sponsored healthcare as they do now with all the perks. The part timers will have Medicaid or the employed equivalent via the health care exchangers.

    There will be very few non managerial full timers in between. Meaning the ultimate victory of Communism, the elimination of the bourgeois, i.e. the middle class.

    Comment by dscott — November 10, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

  11. #10, At Kroger, the situation is complicated by the union representation of the UFCW and I believe dozens of other unions (the co. has a few people who do nothing but negotiate union Ks all year long, or at least did a few years ago). Don’t know whether they’re covered under union plans, co. plan(s), or a combo. But those members are IIRC predominantly full-timers, though they are constantly advertising for part-timers.

    Comment by Tom — November 10, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.