Washing D.C. liquidation sale - Page 4 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old October 7th, 2013, 11:17 AM   #61
BlooMule
pew pew
 
BlooMule's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: a mile from the shithole
Posts: 25,172
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WSU JK View Post
While I am not always a supporter of foreign aid, especially for how some countries that openly support terrorism and are violators of many basic human rights receive millions and millions of dollars and because of a multitude of inefficiencies in the system, it is important to note that when a foreign country receives $X in U.S. government aid, that money is actually spent here in the United States on products and services that are given to the foreign country.

So when a country like Kazakhstan receives $13,960,000 in U.S. aid in 2012, that is $13,960,000 that is spent here in the U.S. on food products, medical equipment and goods, military equipment, advanced technology, etc. and then shipped overseas.

The foreign aid dollars have a huge impact on local economies because they support basic industries that export rather than non-basic industries where the money is just circulating and re-circulating locally. Supporting basic industries has a much higher multiplier effect than subsidies to non-basic industries would.

The U.S. does not just cut a check for $X to the foreign countries to do with what they want.
So in effect it's like a Bridge Card with a $14,000,000 credit?
__________________
-rw-rw-rw
BlooMule is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old October 7th, 2013, 12:10 PM   #62
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Yes, I read them.

So Congressional staffers cannot take a pay cut due to losing its employers subsidies, but the rest of the general population, thats ok?

Employers can get an exemption under the "affordable" and "minimum" requirement, but what about the rest of the general population?

Didn't the house put forward a proposal to delay the entire thing by 1 year in one of the CR, and that got rejected? They already did it for themselves and some business, why not all the little guys?

If one takes just these 3 tidbits, it appears that our Government cares more about its own employees and business than it does the general population. I realize that's getting into conspiracy territory, but the argument can be made. Especially when one contrasts that to the resources our Government is putting into closing things that need no money or attention to remain open.
Who in the "general population" had their employer contribution towards health insurance cut from 75% to 0% because the health care bill said it had to?

From what I've read there is a provision in the law to give exemption to unions and companies so that they can continue with existing health care plans until the contract expires. So these exemptions are not a change in the law, they are provided for under the law.

I agree that closing things just to make it difficult for people but from an ethical standpoint, and also from a strategic stand point.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2013, 12:11 PM   #63
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
So in effect it's like a Bridge Card with a $14,000,000 credit?
No, more like an aid package.
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2013, 03:03 PM   #64
mojave01x2
Senior Member
 
mojave01x2's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-01-08
Location: Hell Michigan
Posts: 1,023
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
No, more like an aid package.
An aid package to benefit who? So we employ some people, but we are giving away goods that should/could be sold. OUR COUNRTY IS BROKE AND CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO GIVE AWAY ANYTHING. Eventually americans will have to pay our debts, at least stop the growth of debt for now.
mojave01x2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2013, 05:45 PM   #65
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Who in the "general population" had their employer contribution towards health insurance cut from 75% to 0% because the health care bill said it had to?
I dont know, personally. But you know the saying... Personal anecdotes make for lousy arguments.

Its not a matter of the ACA demanding employers drop their coverage for their employees. But from a financial business standpoint, $3,000 per year is cheaper than $9,000 to $12,000 per year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
From what I've read there is a provision in the law to give exemption to unions and companies so that they can continue with existing health care plans until the contract expires. So these exemptions are not a change in the law, they are provided for under the law.
Can you cite the specific wording please? The my understanding, the law took effect on a specific date. It did not spell out any specific exemptions. But I could be wrong so I will stand by....
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7th, 2013, 08:48 PM   #66
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,487
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Can you cite the specific wording please? The my understanding, the law took effect on a specific date. It did not spell out any specific exemptions. But I could be wrong so I will stand by....
I'm not certain this is what they are calling "exemptions" but this is what I found:

Quote:
SEC. 1251. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual
terminate coverage under a group health plan or health
insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.—With respect to a group
health plan or health insurance coverage in which an individual
was enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act, this subtitle
and subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles)
shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless of whether
the individual renews such coverage after such date of enactment.
(b) ALLOWANCE FOR FAMILY MEMBERS TO JOIN CURRENT COVERAGE.—
With respect to a group health plan or health insurance
coverage in which an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment
of this Act and which is renewed after such date, family
members of such individual shall be permitted to enroll in such
plan or coverage if such enrollment is permitted under the terms
of the plan in effect as of such date of enactment.
(c) ALLOWANCE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES TO JOIN CURRENT PLAN.—
A group health plan that provides coverage on the date of enactment
of this Act may provide for the enrolling of new employees (and
their families) in such plan, and this subtitle and subtitle A (and
the amendments made by such subtitles) shall not apply with
respect to such plan and such new employees (and their families).
H. R. 3590—44
(d) EFFECT ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.—In the
case of health insurance coverage maintained pursuant to one or
more collective bargaining agreements between employee representatives
and one or more employers that was ratified before the
date of enactment of this Act, the provisions of this subtitle and
subtitle A (and the amendments made by such subtitles) shall
not apply until the date on which the last of the collective bargaining
agreements relating to the coverage terminates. Any coverage
amendment made pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
relating to the coverage which amends the coverage solely
to conform to any requirement added by this subtitle or subtitle
A (or amendments) shall not be treated as a termination of such
collective bargaining agreement.
(e) DEFINITION.—In this title, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
plan’’ means any group health plan or health insurance coverage
to which this section applies
brewmenn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 8th, 2013, 03:55 AM   #67
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I'm not certain this is what they are calling "exemptions" but this is what I found:
Thanks....

SO then why the need for an "exemption?" There must be something more to these exemptions than merely a pushback of the date the requirement starts.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.19787 seconds with 41 queries