Neil

Lets break this thing down...

"Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA."

- To please the Republicans, this does state that the ACA is having a negative effect on employment. But it is not a loss when compared to our current employment, as it is still an increase, albeit a smaller one. It is a loss if we compare it to where we could be in the future without the ACA when it comes to employment. Future comparisons are used all the time and are perfectly fine to do. But should be stated as such. Both Republicans & Democrats are doing a terrible job in making this point known.

"The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, ..."

- Full-Time Employment will decline because workers will choose to stop working or work fewer hours, not because businesses will be firing employees (for the most part).

-- The Republican point that the ACA would provide a disincentive to work, is proven by this statement.

--- But the work that is vacated, will be filled in by someone else, thus providing no real change in employment.

"... so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)."

----

- So basically Republicans were right on some things, just not to the extent that some of them tried to push. And Democrats also had their share of correct and incorrect assumptions.

- As a Libertarian I thought I'd go through this thing as both sides seem to just continue to argue with one another as they both believe that they are correct. And I should probably get to reading what the full CBO report actually says, but in the meantime I thought I'd breakdown the quote everyone is arguing over.

Oh, right, question.... Umm, What is your opinion on this CBO report or of the ACA in general?

He stated ...

"Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash," he said. "They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Racist = "a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another."

Seems to me all he was doing was sharing his experience, that has nothing to do with judging a person based on their race.

Is his response inaccurate? If you assume he was talking about ALL blacks having the same experience, then yes. I can't really decipher if he is though. But it wouldn't be racist, just inaccurate.

There is a bill going through Congress that would allow insurance companies to offer insurance plans that do not meet the standards of Obamacare.

It has even gained some Democratic support.

But if these same Democrats are ones who voted in favor of Obamacare in the past, then they are idiots and should really be removed from Congress as they have no idea what is going on.

Obama himself has said he would not sign this bill. The reasoning he tries to use is that people should be required to have a minimum insurance plan that fills their needs. The really reason is that Obamacare will not be sustainable if people are buying cheaper plans, as they aren't putting money into the plans that cover things they don't even need. Obamacare needs those funds to pay to those who get the discounts.

If these Democratic representatives do not see this, then they had no idea what Obamacare truly is, which is a program that redistributes the wealth. It is not a plan to give affordable care to all Americans, as it has done barely nothing to control the rising costs of health care.

Why do you think they do not see this?

Why is it bad to require a person to prove they are American with a photo ID to vote in America?

The argue I've heard is that it's discriminatory because minorities won't be able to afford it.

There are two essential problems with this though...

1. It is stating that minorities are poor as a fact. Now if you look at the numbers, there is a larger percentage of minorities that are poor compared to the percentage of whites that are poor. So it is true, but if a conservative said this, they would be labeled a racist. So while it's reasonable to use this as a reason why these laws would be racist, people need to stay objective about this in other arguments.

2. At least some (if not all) states provide areas where American citizens can obtain FREE ID cards for the purpose of voting. And as long as all states do provide this by election time, I see no problem with this law.

Please let me know if there are any other reasons why this law is discriminatory and/or suppressive? And/Or how you feel about these laws being enacted?

If you refuse to buy an insurance plan, you are to receive a penalty (unless you are exempt). But if you don't pay that fine, the government doesn't have the power to take any action against you.

Written in the ACA under the section "Waiver of Criminal Penalties" is...

"In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

"The Secretary [of Health and Human Services] shall not file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section … or levy on any such property with respect to such failure."

But what can they do? They can deduct it from your future tax returns as stated by the IRS Commissioner...

"... the vast majority of American people have a healthy respect for the law and want to be compliant with their tax obligations and whatever else the law holds. People will get letters from us. We can actually do collection if need be. People can get offsets of their tax returns in future years, so there's a variety of ways for us to focus on things like fraud, things like abuse, and we're gonna run a balanced program."

Benefits

- More Competition.

- Lower Prices.

- An actually incentive to make people healthy instead of making them reliant on medicine or treatments.

One thing about this idea is that hospitals would limit the insurance to care only in their hospitals. But this could be troublesome if you aren't located near one when something goes wrong.

- There could be provisions in the contract that address that issue. (different percentage rate, etc.)

- OR there could also be a couple plans that are universally offered and accepted. They must be offered by each hospital. What ever hospital receiving the income from the insurance would be the one that pays for the care. These would end up costing more that a plan limited to a certain hospital though.

I know it's not very likely to happen in our current society, but I think it's an idea that could work well.

Let me know if you agree or disagree. Are there any large holes that need to be addressed? What are the glaring negatives to this idea, if any?

I'm not trying to start a debate about ObamaCare or anything.

All I'm asking is if we WERE taxed a certain percentage of our income for us all to receive "basic health care", what do you believe should be included in that?

Please read the comment below...

"Being in an age group that is just recently finding it's political voice and developing a foothold (18-25), and a minority, I feel that the presence of affirmative action is indeed hurting those it seeks to help. Not only does it reinforce racial distinction among applicants, it causes hostility where, were race not to be acknowledged, such considerations would be greatly lessened. Of course realistically speaking, race is a factor that cannot be overcome overnight. However, further fanning the flames by giving preferential treatment to those of us who just want to work hard and prove that we are more than the color of our skin is doing nothing to help those outside of this particular demographic see that we are just as capable and intelligent as any other race.

It goes without saying that of course there are those who need more help than others; however, basing this on race is reinforcing any stereotypes that already exist. Anyone who has been paying attention to the economy since 2008 can realize that minorities are not the only ones who are suffering. Perhaps instead of giving to those based on a superficial characteristic that has no bearing on intelligence, work ethic, or professional ability, we seek those who have been disadvantaged socioeconomically and then we can see where the chips fall. Given the current economic climate, the last thing we need is more division when working together as people, regardless of what we look like or who we sleep with, is really the only way out of such a dire situation. Then again, maybe I'm putting too much faith in humanity's ability to stop categorizing each other on such superficial bases." - RSH

Agree or Disagree? Why? What should be done with affirmative action, if anything?

You would hope we could have at least 50% of Americans voting for the president.

How can we get this number up while also informing people about the candidates?

I personally am in favor of Range Voting, or at least approval voting. But am open to criticism.

Please identify if you like our current system (FPTP), or you prefer a different system. And describe why you prefer that system.

And who has the best chance of winning?

Aaron Rodgers

Hakeem Nicks

FOR

Maurice Jones Drew

Matthew Stafford

????

Both MJD & Nicks seem to be injury risks.

Will Stafford rise back up to 2011 stats (40 TDs, 5,000 yards)?

Will Rodgers lose some points to the Packers gaining somewhat of a running game?

Current Team:

QB: Matthew Stafford

RB: CJ Spiller, MJD, Lamar Miller

WR: Roddy White, Lance Moore, Emmanuel Sanders, Malcolm Floyd

*Only need to start 1 RB & 1 WR (3 Flex)

Sometimes I think we are just voting along our party lines without even looking at what the issue is and what the best way to solve it would be.

Our presidential elections are always so close. A "landslide" victory for president is like 53% of the vote.

I get how we have our different philosophies, but wouldn't you think we could actually come together and agree on some things? Being able to compromise instead of being so defensive all the time?

Processor : 4th Gen. Intel i7-4700MQ (2.4 GHz)

Memory (RAM) : 8-16 GB (16 preferred)

Graphics : NVIDIA GT 740M (2GB) (or enough for HD video editing (Adobe CS5), and some games)

Display : 1920x1080

Hard Drive : 128 GB Solid State Drive (or more if cheap)

Size : 13"-16"

Extra Perks (Desired, but not needed): 3+ 3.0 USB Ports, Backlight Keyboard, Slim (<1.0" thin), Touch Screen.

Price Range : $1,000-$1,500

I've looked around a little bit, even trying to customize my own. But from what I've tried I haven't been able to find anything with these specs together. So I though I'd ask here even knowing that it may be tough to find. So there is some wiggle room.

Thank you

Anyone else think that the "controversy" over this ad is actually made by General Mills just to get the media to discuss it and get free advertising?

It seems lot of other companies are using this new tactic also.

I just can't believe people can actually be offended by this type of stuff to the extent they try to make a company stop from airing an ad.

*The media also loves to create controversy where there is none, so it might actually be more them than General Mills*

Anyone else think that the "controversy" over this ad is actually made by General Mills just to get the media to discuss it and get free advertising?

It seems lot of other companies are using this new tactic also.

I just can't believe people can actually be offended by this type of stuff to the extent they try to make a company stop from airing an ad.

*The media also loves to create controversy where there is none, so it might actually be more them than General Mills*

Given that the child is completely reliant on machines for breathing and nourishment and It seems the child has no sense of what is happening in reality.

Does the mother have the right to pull the plug?

Given that the child is completely reliant on machines for breathing and nourishment and It seems the child has no sense of what is happening in reality.

Does the mother have the right to pull the plug?