nobody Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 Everything is voted on prior to the Senate going on break - I mean prior to be in a pro forma session? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 12, 2012 Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 Thomas is talking about the new federal rule requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of contraceptives, even plans offered by Catholic institutions. The argument is this infringes on the religious freedom of those institutions, given the Catholic Church's stance on birth control. Edit: Sabres Fan beat me to it. Ah yes, the high moral Catholic Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Ah yes, the high moral Catholic Church. Tell me about it. John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale would have a thing or two to say about them. :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fan2456 Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Have you applied for this particular credit (or looked into it at least) and been told it only applies to full time employees? It seems to me that this credit was specifically included to help businesses like yours, and if it only applies to businesses with full time employees, well, that's fairly retarded. The important thing should be paying insurance for your employees, and if it's written to only apply to full time employees, that's an epic government failure. Sorry, haven't been in here in awhile. Don't have the specifics at my finger tips but it came down to total hours they work in a year not meeting the criteria. I could probably play games and make them salary, but I didn't. I'm kind of ###### and downloaded the worksheet myself to check on the accountant. He was correct. This was last year at this time and I don't recall the exact numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 Sorry, haven't been in here in awhile. Don't have the specifics at my finger tips but it came down to total hours they work in a year not meeting the criteria. I could probably play games and make them salary, but I didn't. I'm kind of ###### and downloaded the worksheet myself to check on the accountant. He was correct. This was last year at this time and I don't recall the exact numbers. Well then, that's all kinds of stupid. Logic would dictate the smaller the business the more assistance would be required for providing health care, particularly if that business (like yours) fully covers the costs. So theoretically a business with 2 full time employees that only covers 50% of costs would be eligible for the credit, but your business doesn't qualify because of some hours crap even though you cover 100%. So your costs would be higher than this other hypothetical business, but no credit...while they pay less, and get the credit. That is about as back asswards as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 13, 2012 Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 I had heard that there were a lot of small businesses that were not making plans to grow and expand because of the choking economic effects that Obamacare will have. Hearing this firsthand proves it. There were a lot of bars that claimed the smoking laws would destroy their business (including one in Binghamton that pro-actively closed). I haven't noticed the bars being empty lately. My point is people often over-react before finding out what's really going to happen. Time will tell, but I suspect people that want to make money and expand will find a way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 There were a lot of bars that claimed the smoking laws would destroy their business (including one in Binghamton that pro-actively closed). I haven't noticed the bars being empty lately. My point is people often over-react before finding out what's really going to happen. Time will tell, but I suspect people that want to make money and expand will find a way to do it. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Has anyone noticed that Santorum is just a couple of letters away from Sanitorium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarasotaSabre Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 Taking over car manufacturers in non-war-time is not a power grab? Recess appointments when Congress is NOT in recess is not a power grab? Obama care is NOT a power grab? No offense, but in just debating hockey with you I note how you exaggerate positions and statements, and make assumptions that you have no business making. You may accuse me of that, but you do it yourself consistently. And then you demand that the other party provide proof and follow a certain logic, when you yourself do not follow your own rules for debate. I'm not going to waste time getting into minutiae and detail when I know that it'll be constant battle of back-tracking, reiterating, correcting and simply spinning the wheels. In the end it won't matter to anyone here, anyway. Again, no offense, but I will decline the invite to debate here. The CFR or the Trilateralists? I've enjoyed the back & forth debate and it makes for a good read; I have got to say I am with Sizzlemeister on his side of things. While one MIGHT be able to defend Barry's power grabs and acts of Presidential fiat, I would like to propose 2 acts (....among other, I am certain) of outright anti-business behavior - the decision to block Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work S. Carolina, and the recent very quick decision to strike down the Keystone pipeline with nary a desire to investigate its' viability for a nanosecond. What made that horrendous decision worse was to listen to the Canadian PM painfully concede they may have to look at dealing in China in this venture. These instances of clear over-reach, along with a painfully stifling climate of economic uncertainty and impingement upon freedom & liberty, leave me both angered and concerned for the sake of our country. I have a numbe rof friends who do quite well financially, and they are already making contingency plans to move their money abroad if BHO gets re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 I've enjoyed the back & forth debate and it makes for a good read; I have got to say I am with Sizzlemeister on his side of things. While one MIGHT be able to defend Barry's power grabs and acts of Presidential fiat, I would like to propose 2 acts (....among other, I am certain) of outright anti-business behavior - the decision to block Boeing from building a plant in right-to-work S. Carolina, and the recent very quick decision to strike down the Keystone pipeline with nary a desire to investigate its' viability for a nanosecond. What made that horrendous decision worse was to listen to the Canadian PM painfully concede they may have to look at dealing in China in this venture. These instances of clear over-reach, along with a painfully stifling climate of economic uncertainty and impingement upon freedom & liberty, leave me both angered and concerned for the sake of our country. I have a numbe rof friends who do quite well financially, and they are already making contingency plans to move their money abroad if BHO gets re-elected. Some people have already moved their money abroad. There's one guy whose name escapes me at this time, but he sold his property in NYC a few years ago and took his family and all of his funds and moved to (IIRC) Singapore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 You might want to check a little closer. Article 1 Section 5: "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting." They weren't adjourned, which means they weren't in recess. While I find the situation to be skirting the rules, President Obama is in the wrong on this one. Recess (the suspension of a session of a palimentary body) and adjournment (the ending of a session of a paliamentary body) are not the same thing. Source: "Roberts Rules of Order" Sections 20 and 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I stepped out of this thread for a bit because I have been way to busy to give it the thought it deserves, but I just want to cite this little piece of internet gold as a good support for the previously discussed "uneducated masses" issue. (Mind you I am posting this as humor ;) ...well....mostly...) http://literallyunbelievable.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I stepped out of this thread for a bit because I have been way to busy to give it the thought it deserves, but I just want to cite this little piece of internet gold as a good support for the previously discussed "uneducated masses" issue. (Mind you I am posting this as humor ;) ...well....mostly...) http://literallyunbelievable.org/ It's no wonder they're called "The Onion." Some of the asinine stuff they put up there in their bizarre attempt to call it humor is enough to make a grown man :cry: . In another piece of irony, I could not help but notice that there was a sidebar ad for Ron Paul. :thumbsup: (What's really cool is that one of my Facebook friends who originally hails from Bulgaria (but now lives in Houston) has been rooting for him like there's no tomorrow.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's no wonder they're called "The Onion." Some of the asinine stuff they put up there in their bizarre attempt to call it humor is enough to make a grown man :cry: . In another piece of irony, I could not help but notice that there was a sidebar ad for Ron Paul. :thumbsup: (What's really cool is that one of my Facebook friends who originally hails from Bulgaria (but now lives in Houston) has been rooting for him like there's no tomorrow.) The worst part is that there are people out there who don't understand that it is not real news. I'm curious to see where the Republican race goes. If Paul gets the bid, I'd have to seriously consider him. I might not agree with him on some points (abortion, his old news letters), but I like his attitude. I'd like to see him convince me that he's a better choice than Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Anyone watching the GOP debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Else? Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Anyone watching the GOP debate? I watched until I seen everyone honoring the big TV screen during the anthem. The SC debate featured the same embarrassment. Our Presidential contenders and most of the Southwest politacal heavy hitters, all stood there and saluted a monitor. It makes me sick. The flag is the symbol of America, not the image of stars and stripes. The anthem was written about the flag and the men in Baltimore who overcame a British bombardment to win our countries freedom. It is a fantastic story how Francis Scott Key came up with the words to honor the soldiers and the Flag they would not let fall. Now you got these clowns honoring a TV screen. I am writing a strongely worded letter to CNN and the RNC tomorrow. I think it will gain some traction, I just thought after seeing it in SC, that would be the last time that it would ever happen again. Surely I can not be the only one appauled by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I got a laugh out of Santorum dismissing Joe Arpaio's "little trouble" with the Fed. Yeah Rick, violating the Constitution is no big deal. :rolleyes: I was also a little confused by the admission of the GOP panel that the "morality of young adults" is a problem that the Federal government needs to "fix". That doesn't sound very "states' rights" at all. I guess they're all for less federal regulation except when it comes to moral issues. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I got a laugh out of Santorum dismissing Joe Arpaio's "little trouble" with the Fed. Yeah Rick, violating the Constitution is no big deal. :rolleyes: I was also a little confused by the admission of the GOP panel that the "morality of young adults" is a problem that the Federal government needs to "fix". That doesn't sound very "states' rights" at all. I guess they're all for less federal regulation except when it comes to moral issues. :huh: I'm missing something here. Are you calling out Santorum for his irony? Or was it something that Joe Arpaio did? EDIT: About the bold section. I have a problem with this too. Who do they think they are? If it's because they're looking to appease the likes of Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and a few others, then I really take umbrage with this. One of my favorite preachers, Albert N. Martin, who is about as conservative as they get, pretty much voiced his disapproval over this kind of interference a number of years ago. It's not the Fed's job to get people to be morally acceptable in society. It all starts in the home and how parents raise their kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm missing something here. Are you calling out Santorum for his irony? Or was it something that Joe Arpaio did? Santorum for his dismissal of how major the issue was. Joe was enforcing a law that he didn't enact, but that was a major violation of Constitutional rights. Saying that Arpaio ran into "a little problem" is ignoring the context entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Santorum for his dismissal of how major the issue was. Joe was enforcing a law that he didn't enact, but that was a major violation of Constitutional rights. Saying that Arpaio ran into "a little problem" is ignoring the context entirely. I found it paradoxical how the DOJ claims that Arpaio violated his prisoners' civil rights, while this is the same organization that has drawn plenty of criticism over its incompetent handling of Operation Fast and Furious - which led to the death of a Border Patrol officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I found it paradoxical how the DOJ claims that Arpaio violated his prisoners' civil rights, while this is the same organization that has drawn plenty of criticism over its incompetent handling of Operation Fast and Furious - which led to the death of a Border Patrol officer. Valid point as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 The anthem was written about the flag and the men in Baltimore who overcame a British bombardment to win preserve our country's freedom. It is a fantastic story how Francis Scott Key came up with the words to honor the soldiers and the Flag they would not let fall. Now you got these clowns honoring a TV screen. I'm going to be a pendant for a second, since the bombardment was during the war of 1812. On a side note, I saw that exact flag last summer in DC. It's on display is a special low-light room in the American History museum in DC. http://www.americanhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/preservation-project.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm going to be a pendant for a second, since the bombardment was during the war of 1812. On a side note, I saw that exact flag last summer in DC. It's on display is a special low-light room in the American History museum in DC. http://www.americanh...on-project.aspx I think they were just starting the restoration of it when I was in DC back in like...2000. Pretty darn cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Has anyone noticed that Santorum is just a couple of letters away from Sanitorium? Does it matter? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=santorum http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+sanatorium&qpvt=sanitorium+definition&FORM=DTPDIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 Does it matter? http://www.urbandict...p?term=santorum http://www.bing.com/...ion&FORM=DTPDIA The definition of Santorum is one of the great justices of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.