Instead of trying to get rid of ACA, perhaps the House should be seeing what they can do to make it work? Of course if Romney had been elected, they would have done everything they could to make it work and called it Romneycare.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Instead of trying to get rid of ACA, perhaps the House should be seeing what they can do to make it work? Of course if Romney had been elected, they would have done everything they could to make it work and called it Romneycare.
would stop blocking all investigations, money would have been saved, Diana, because those investigations would have ended long ago.....open and transparent to this admin comes down to, we will be transparent when it shines a light over our heads and makes us look good and hide in the dark when it doesn't, hoping people will forget and go away.
A Republican committee found nothing wrong and the Republicans and Fox still don't believe it.
was led by a Republican whose wife had/has federal contracts on-going.....and most Republicans have read the report and completely disagree with it. That's why the actual committee headed up by Trey Gowdy (a prosecuting attorney) has more legal authority than any other committee has had before in order to actually get the documents that have been withheld by this administration. And that special committee was formed a while before King's committee 'decided' their report was factual. Gowdy's committee has much more power than any of the others have had and it will combine into one investigation all of the separate reports that have been done. A special committee had been called for numerous times, but Democrats continued to block that....there is no blockade now.
all the embassies that were attacked and people killed under Bush?
that would warrant investigations, Diana? This admin lied just before an election and hoped nobody would catch on to the lie, even when Romney confronted him about it in that debate and Candy Crowley blatantly lied for BO (to which BO arrogantly remarked "show him the document, Candy"......now how would he have known that she would have whatever it was so handy when the question hadn't been raised by Romney yet.......but there it was, miraculously just in time).
The people who were involved in the coverup will eventually be called back by Gowdy and actually have to testify rather than allow Clinton to get all huffy with that remark that will haunt her forever. As long as Dems were and are willing to continue to cover their butts, this admin will be let off the hook every time.........but a SENATE hearing is far different than a HOUSE hearing and has much more clout. Reid wouldn't allow one....ever wonder why?
Assistant AG's were fired by Gonzales.....a hearing was held and Gonzales was forced to resign. What accountability has Holder had for far worse (Border Agent killed by Fast & Furious guns, throwing out the case against the New Black Panthers that GWB had in place to prosecute, every IRS scandal (too numerous to mention) that he's refused to 'investigate', Benghazi, VA scandal with nobody being able to be fired, contempt of Congress charges that he's yet to answer for, Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel allowed off the hook for their tax law breaking, etc.?
And deflecting away is a nice try on your part......it's the liberal mantra. When you haven't got an answer, point the finger somewhere else in a hurry.
You just had a 'torture report' come out based on Dems' points of view....not a courtroom, blaming the CIA completely.....and yet THIS administration AGAIN wasted taxpayer money 'investigating' those same CIA agents for nearly five years and found NOTHING to charge them with.
So you can't argue the FACTS I presented you with and you go in another entirely different direction because you just can't bring yourself to admit that this administration is corrupt and dishonest up to and past their eyeballs. At least when GWB had problems with HIS administration, people were FIRED or forced to resign, Diana. Think of Rumsfield and "Brownie" and Gonzales among the list. The only time people leave THIS administration is when an investigation starts looking too closely.........and even then, sometimes, like with Holder, THIS president breaks the law and gives Executive Privilege as if it's the host being presented by the priest during Holy Communion.
I don't like that he is putting the fox in charge of the chicken coup. It's like putting the best hackers in charge of the country's internet security. Neither bothers me because both are the best in plugging up the holes. But as far as I can see he isn't doing the oversight until trust is established.
Also I don't like the way he treats whistleblowers.
I do like the idea that he is trying to get everyone health insurance like every other industrial nation in the world. People are still dying from lack of insurance and insurance companies denying claims. Our real death panels.
I like the idea that he is trying to get everyone a living wage. Did you know that Washington has the highest minimum wage in the nation (which they did in 1998 and linked it to cola). It is now $9.32 (which I find way too low) and their job growth is the highest in the nation. When you give money to someone who is already rich, they put in an overseas account and don't pay taxes on it. If you give money to someone who is just barely making it, they spend it locally and helps the local businesses, including Wal-Mart and K-Mart and McDonalds and .......
I like that he's trying to help people with crippling student debt with a higher interest rate than we give to banks. These people are our future and they will be paying on those loans forever.
I like the idea that he wants everyone (even billionaires and corporations (one in four don't pay any taxes and even get money from the government) pay their fair share. After all they do use the roads and power and airports and all the other good things our taxes pay for. Did you know that GE makes $16 billion a year and pays -11% in taxes. How much do you pay?
memorized the talking points of Dems who run for office and buy the total package of lies.
Obamacare is already crippling the 'recovered' economy because people are paying much more for insurance and deductibles than before.....and are forced to buy it or pay the outrageous fines per person within each household now. How is that helping anybody if they can't afford to use what they have to pay for since they have to pay the deductible out of pocket before any insurance coverage kicks in? The only way they 'make out' is if they have a devastating/catastrophic accident or illness and will probably have liens on their properties if they own anything from the hospital for the deductible anyhow.
As for the crippling student loan debt.....The Federal Government has taken over all of those debts so any interest rate they are being charged is being done by this administration. If those students get their loans forgiven, who is on the hook to pay the balances due PLUS the interest for all those years? You keep forgetting that it's OUR money and it does NOT belong to the government, Diana. Government is worse than ANY company you can possibly imagine, including GE (which is run by Imelt, who is BO's JOBS consultant for crying out loud). Do you think the Federal Government should ALSO pay taxes on the income it gets from us and squanders away like it belongs to them?
We've already had the discussion about minimum wage....you keep repeating the same rhetoric that doesn't work except on paper in some liberal's mind.
As for the infrastructure.....there are billions of dollars that go into that 'trust fund' every year directly from the 50 states, not to mention the additional funding that gets budgeted every year by Congress. What are they spending it on since it sure as hell isn't going to what it's supposed to 'earmarked' for? When they can be held accountable for wasting that money and it can be justified, perhaps a real discussion can be had about giving them more.
aren't owned by the corporation.........they are franchised and the actual owner is a small business owner. The franchise contract gives complete ownership to the person paying for the franchise with the understanding/commitment to use the McD logos, packaging, the golden arches, the same look to the building itself as the rest of them, the same meals on the menu, the same uniforms for workers, etc. Some McD franchises are unionized, most are not.........for the NLRB to cross the line with this crap that the 'corporation' is the owner of all of the franchises is a real leap and probably won't hold up in court (and I believe the corporation will go that route).
I'm not sure because I haven't looked into it that heavily, but I think Advanced Auto Parts, NAPA stores, many Revco, WalGreen or CVS locations, etc. are also franchised, not to mention pizza parlors and restaurants like Applebee's and Red Lobster with 'name brand' recognition. The Unions are desperate to rebuild their base and have the BO backed NLRB in their pockets........
they are franchised and the actual owner is a small business owner.
AND McDonalds dictates everything that goes on in that "franchise".
That's how so many McD's have sprouted up all over the world.....obviously you have no comprehension when it comes to what a franchise is.
They should tell their "franchisees" to get their shirt together and settle, and McDonalds "problem" will go away.
The National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel has investigated charges alleging McDonald's franchisees and their franchisor, McDonald's, USA, LLC, violated the rights of employees as a result of activities surrounding employee protests. The Office of the General Counsel found merit in some of the charges and no merit in others. The Office of the General Counsel has authorized complaints on alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act. If the parties cannot reach settlement in these cases, complaints will issue and McDonald's, USA, LLC will be named as a joint employer respondent.
The National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel has had 181 cases involving McDonald's filed since November 2012. Of those cases, 68 were found to have no merit. 64 cases are currently pending investigation and 43 cases have been found to have merit. In the 43 cases where complaint has been authorized, McDonald's franchisees and/or McDonald's, USA, LLC will be named as a respondent if parties are unable to reach settlement.
are past ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNIONS, of course their General Counsel will find the majority of cases presented to it in favor of those unions. And just what do you think that 'settlement' will be, JP.....it will be forcing those small businesses into union contracts. And then, what do you think will happen? That small business goes under like so many other small businesses have gone under and all those people will be out of jobs AGAIN.
When will you wake up and realize that unions don't give a crap about the worker? They care about DUES that keeps the UNION in business.
Beating your dead horse here....see ya
That could be quite difficult, considering WITHOUT a union, they already have a turnover around 157% a year.
The SEIU wants to organize McDonald's and other fast food chains because of the high rate of turnover in the fast food industry. With turnover at McDonald's around 157 percent annually, then in one year an average of three people fill every position.
I wonder why there is such a large turnover when it's such a good job.
McDonalds...the home of the Whopper AND the Turnover.
McDonald's franchises have always been a 'turn over' job.....people (like kids) take them to gain work experience and then go on to better jobs. When the job market fell apart, too many full time workers lost their 'normal' jobs and were forced into taking whatever they could find, including working at McD's........but NEVER without the hope of finding another 'normal' job. Those McD jobs, to them, were NEVER going to be permanent, JP, because, to them, it's NOT a 'good job'.....not when they are trained to do something else and have experience in those fields. It's a waiting game for those people....hang on as best you can until you have the chance to get back to your 'normal' life. So they get replaced by others who are in the same boat they were in......or some kid again gets 'lucky' and gets hired so they can get work experience and then THEY leave and are replaced again. THAT'S the whole idea behind companies like McD.
Oh well........your dead horse is still dead........
It is good to see you admit that the economy, under Obama, is so good that the turnover rate at McDonalds is close to 157% /year, and people are leaving to get "normal jobs".
I hope this brings some joy to you for the start of the New Year, and the GOP haven't even touched the reins of power yet
"After four years of rocky recovery the U.S. economy is now hitting its stride, with a notable acceleration in growth in recent quarters," said Gus Faucher, senior economist at PNC Financial Services Group. "And growth should remain good next year, with lower gasoline prices a big plus for consumers."
But many economists think growth is set to accelerate as more businesses have grown confident about hiring. The country is on track to have its healthiest year for job growth since 1999. In November, employers added 321,000 jobs, the sharpest one-month increase in three years.
When the GOP do get the reins...don't screw it up.
You just can't admit that I'm right about a place like McD's and how the NLRB is overreaching because they are on the side of Unions and not un-biased like they are supposed to be.
doesn't prove anything one way or another. It's like asking if the weather has improved since someone took office. No answer can satisfy a claim that the person had anything positive (or negative) to do with it. I'd need to ask if an economy change with or without presidential action. To that question, I'd answer "Yes". You then ask if the economy could improve with or without and the answer is still "Yes". From there you discuss whether the improvement could be sped up or slowed by the president's actions. I'd answer that either could be the case. Now we'll ask if the president's actions actually slowed the growth, can we still say it improved? Yes we can. But that's not necessarily a positive. It may be a positive if the president's actions sped things up but how can we prove that? We can't, IMO. An economy that can change for the better or for the worse whether the president takes action aimed at affecting it or not cannot be used as praise or blame unless we can show evidence that the actions taken altered the rate of natural economic cycles.
With that being said, it appears that current data shows an economy that is growing. Can we say with confidence that the growth and growth rate are due to Obama's work?...and that the growth rate would be worse without Obama in office? If the answer is "yes", I'd like to see supportive data that includes comparisons with other natural economic cycles.
Obama's making it look good by spending the future for the present, hiding the decay behind the debt he's piling up worse than any president before him. He wants to get out and leave someone else holding the bag on it. All part of the LIE that is Obama.
NBRB = National Bosses Relation Board. Or maybe National Corporations Protection Board.
liquor stores isn't enough for Obama's constituents, now he wants to help them loot the fast food joints too? Stir it up Obama, stir it up, one day it will come back to you.
Some riot and loot, others use a different method.
The Chamber played a central role in the midterm campaigns, spending more than $70 million, according to an official. After backing a number of losing candidates in 2012, the goal for the group—and the Republican party—in 2014 was to nominate candidates with the best prospects of winning a general election, and an aptitude to govern once they arrived in Washington.
"We had candidates who were fundamentally more interested in turning over the apple cart than they were in governing," Mr. Donohue said of the congressional elections in 2010 and 2012.
Chamber of Commerce = $70 million
Unions = ??????????????
"After backing a number of losing candidates in 2012"......were any of them Tea Party candidates and now they are crying over spilt milk because they feel it was money wasted; however, IF any of them WERE Tea Party candidates, they knew ahead of time that they 'were fundamentally more interested in turning over the apple cart than they were in governing', which is a bunch of crap because they AREN'T and, like Dems turning on BO now, are trying to distance themselves and blame him for their losses.
After reading your post with so many "them"s and "they"s.......... I AM CONFUSED
How the Tea Party lost the 2014 midterms