Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: 'Not Only Do They NOT Have Healtcare'

Posted by **comic relief** on Aug 15, 2013 at 1:12:03 PM:
In Reply to: Re: 'Not Only Do They NOT Have Healtcare' posted by **murray** on Aug 15, 2013 at 12:37:38 PM:

************But Their Hours are Being Cut!
************
************NBC News contacted around 20 small businesses and other entities for this report and found that employee hours are being cut to 29 hours because of Obamacare, despite the delay of the employer mandate. But the White House, NBC News reports, says that there is no systematic evidence that this is because of Obamacare and dismisses the report as anecdotal.
************
************Watch the Video at the Link
************
************====================================
************
************but they one said this wouldn't happen?
***********
***********
***********
***********There are numerous businesses around here both small and medium that have already begun cutting employee hours down to 20 hours a week. They can't make the money as before and alot of them are
***********struggling even now to make ends meet. And there's simply nothing out there for them to go elsewhere.
***********Obamacare IS going to be a leading cause for the disappearance
***********of alot of small businesses despite what the WH claims. It will have a DIRECT NEGATIVE affect on middle class America.
***********Most of those businesses will end up folding because they will no longer be able to support the personnel to get the job done as before and alot of those workers will end up quitting when they realize because of the shorter hours they aren't really making any progress/money as before and hence will end up on unemployment compensation or welfare (and in alot of cases, actually making more money than they do working) just as this administration is trying to encourage them to do. And Obama playing ignorant of the repercussions of Obamacare is typical of an administration that has deliberately sought to make people and small business less self reliant and become more reliant on the government.
***********The fact that he delayed the employer mandate doesn't mean anything as businesses are already starting to "gear down" in anticipation of it later down the line.
***********2016 isn't getting here fast enough it seems.
***********
***********
***********
***********
***********
**********
**********So if faced with fewer hours or quitting and going on welfare, you would quit and go on welfare?
*********
*********
*********Personally? No I wouldn't..I'd rather work than not work..but that's me.
*********But that's the choice being given to several of my relatives now. They feel they would actually be doing better on unemployment and food stamps than working fewer hours. My late wife's daughter had to give up her house several months ago because her employer at a daycare center cut her hours down to 20 hours or less a week and she couldn't sustain the cost of living there anymore. Plus she had to commute almost 30 miles just to get there. She had to move in with her former sister-in-law closer to her work and just this past weekend finally found a small apartment that is still at least 20 miles from her work. She still has two mouths to feed. It shouldn't be like this. In this state, (Illinois) if you are on unemployment compensation and you are offered employment, you have to take it whether you like the job or not and if you refuse you lose your unemployment/food stamps anyway. The change for her was almost immediate. Less money to work with and still having to support two kids and a house.
*********
*********Like I said, this shouldn't be happening.
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
*********
********
********So if someone chooses to go on welfare instead of just working fewer hours and or picking up a secondary source of income, then how is that the fault of the administration? That happens at the personal level.
********
********You're obviously against people being on welfare and abusing the system. But you're also against Illinois forcing you to take a job that is offered to you to get you off welfare quicker so people don't/won't abuse the system. You can't have it both ways. It seems to me that any job, no matter how shitty it is, would *
*******
*******Mac - I personally know of several people who have elected to stay on unemployment because it pays more then the 29 hour a week jobs that are being offered
*******
*******Case in Point:
*******Good friend-known him for 30 years - always held a steady job & deplored handouts.
*******He was laid off from his job 8 months ago. While sending out his resumes for work more suited to his experience he collected unemployment to keep some income coming in. You know - try to pay his bills, buy some food.
*******
*******He applied to several large retailers (Costco, Home Depot, Lowes). All they would offer him was 20 to 29 hours a week @ $11 to $12 an hour ($348) a week. When he pointed out that that was less then he was getting from unemployment ($405 a week) - he elected to remain in unemployment as it went further toward paying some of those bills & buying food for his family.
*******
*******Luckily his wife has a decent paying job & they are not yet hurting. However - it's only a matter of time.
*******
*******
******
******So there is no option to work two similar jobs at 20 hours each putting in 40 hours a week? He would make more money and be working full time. Granted the benefits wouldn't be there but it would mean more money in the pocket. Heck, even just doing a side job like cutting lawns for some side money would be better. That's just me though.
******
******My point is, just because welfare is there, doesn't mean everyone is going to take advantage of it. Welfare has been around a long time. There were abuses under both Bush and Reagan administrations. I hate it when people claim this is some new concept brought on by Obama. You will always have those that will try and be lazy and take advantage of the assistance offered to them.
*****
*****
*****
***** Didn't Obama do away with some Clinton measures designed to wean people off welfare? I seem to recall that he lifted requirements that were in place....
*****
*****
*****Yes, people have always taken advantage of the welfare system but has Obama made that more of less likely to happen?
****
****The people have made that more or less likely to happen.
***
***
***
*** And Barack Obama is a person.. He's a person who gutted Clinton welfare reform measures, bypassing Congress to do so with that kingly air of his once again in place..
**
**Really?
**
**And really?
*
*
*
*
*Okay, so that should have read "attempted to bypass Congress in order to do so with that kingly air of his once again in place."
*
*
*His attempt to shut Congress out is mentioned in the second article ..
*
*
*
*If only they had done this kind of thing more often instead of rolling over for him...
*

So maybe you should know what you're talking about rather than just parroting conservative, anti-Obama talking points....

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Aug 16, 2013