Rockism 101 discussion

politics and culture > How ObamaCare can keep jobs from going overseas?

Comments (showing 1-12 of 12) (12 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ed (last edited Nov 14, 2012 02:32PM) (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Does anyone listen to talk radio? There is this Latte liberal named Thom Hartman who was on his soapbox today talking about how tarifs is the only way to prevent jobs from going overseas.

The reasons I call him a latte liberal are many, but in this case it is because that he framed this entire discussion in the parameters set up by the corporate consumer culture. Like most latte liberals he has bought into the entire corporate system hook, line and sinker.

The real solution is that the entire system needs to be overhauled. There are very few industries in US that actually NEED the corporate system to work. Nearly every product or service that is wanted in the US can be done by SMALL businesses. And the benefits of small businesses providing products/services over large corporations is that small business do not outsource jobs. They keep the jobs local.

So the solution to outsourcing is very easy. We not only need to level the playing field in which small businesses have all the same advantages of large corporations (tax codes, loop holes, etc) but that they actually have an advantage.

ObamaCare is a strong step in the right direction toward giving small businesses this advantage. ObamaCare is a step toward a single-payer system.

message 2: by Ed (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments If you pay attention to the news - especially FOX news, you will see that there have been a lot os stories of companies laying off 500, 1000 or 1500 employees. Your first reaction might be that this is a scary thing. But actually it is just the opposite: whenever you hear of a company firing 1500 people that is a GOOD thing.

Because that means that our economy is actually beginning the first steps in transitioning AWAY from a large corporate-based economic model and TOWARD a small-business economic model.

Notice, everytime a small business fires a few people or goes out of business, that NEVER makes the news. But since the late 1980 it has been happening at an alramingly high rate.

ObamaCare is helping to reverse that trend. AS IS the notion that big companies are afraid that Elizabeth Warren and the Obama Administration are going to seriously start closing some loop holes and tax shelters on the multi-national big corporations with the hopes of leveling the playing field for small businesses against the corporate giants.

So its not scary at all. As they say, whenever one door closes another one opens. In this case whenever a large corporate job is lost, the opportunity for a small business is opened.

message 3: by Sarah (new)

Sarah Price | 31 comments I can't stand Fox! how do you stomach it? Lol

message 4: by Ed (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments I don't watch it - I hear clips of it on various talk radio shows...

Actually, I do watch Fox on Sundays, since they have NFL football.


message 5: by Ed (new)

Ed Wagemann (EdWagemann) | 985 comments Since the Obama win Fox News and the right-wing radio talk show and cable tv nuts have taken great pleasure in reporting on any story in which a large corporation lays people off.

Prior to the election the Right-wing was trying to scare folks into voting for Romney by reporting stories of company owners who sent their employess letters and gave them speeches about how they would have to cut workers if Obama won because they cannot afford for ObamaCare to be in enacted.

Recently there was a story about the CEO of Papa John's corporate pizza belly-achng that he would have to punish his workers because he can not afford ObamaCare (this from a guy who is giving away $32 MILLION in a marketing scheme that gives away free pizzas)

Just to stick with this example, there are litterally dozens of small business pizza joints within a 5 mile radius of my residence. Multiple that by the entire country and it is easy to how POSSIBLE it is for our nation's small businesss to absorb the losses of the large corporations (losses which they claim are due to ObamaCare).

message 6: by Tanjlisa (new)

Tanjlisa Marie (TanjlisaMarie) | 234 comments I knew I was against this healthcare-for-all government sponsored plan but I had to refresh my memory by looking up some facts over the internet.
My biggest question when I first heard the debate surrounding universal healthcare was how are we going to pay for it! Well, the plan calls for:

"Starting in 2013, individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 will pay a Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent, up from the current 1.45 percent, on income over those thresholds. While Higher-income people will face a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income, such as dividends and interest.

Starting in 2018, the law also will impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year and $27,500 for families. The tax has been dubbed a "Cadillac" tax because it hits the most generous plans."

(And not to take things out of context, the website spells out many ways the plan will lower taxes for the middle class while imposing cuts elsewhere to help raise money while (supposedly) helping the middle class.) But I have a problem with this. Does anyone not see a problem with taxing people because we think "they can afford it"? I don't think that's right. I plan on being rich someday and it makes me sick to my stomach that my country thinks I should have to pay more just because I pushed myself to want to make more money than others. I'm not rich now and I don't think the rich should have to pay for my healthcare. Yes, what about the poor. They already have Medicare and Medicaid!!

My second issue is the penalty for not having insurance. The people who still can't afford insurance, hey, guess what, you get a fine:

"Starting in 2014, most people will have to have insurance or pay a tax. For individuals, penalty starts at $95 a year, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016.

For families the tax will be $2,085 or 2.5% percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs."

And before you go saying, well, the poor people can get waivers for financial hardship. Do you know how little money you have to make to be considered poor? What about the middle class who are barely hanging on? They more than likely will not fall under this hardship rule and thus, get screwed again thanks to government regulation.

The plan has good provisions in it but I see the future...and the future reads sorry middle class, you are screwed up the butt!

message 7: by Tanjlisa (new)

Tanjlisa Marie (TanjlisaMarie) | 234 comments I honestly don't see how the precentile of people without medical coverage that we, as tax payers, pay for currently is going to change. My premiums are going up. If mine are going up then how are people who can't afford healthcare's costs going to be affordable to them? And once again, they will have a fine to pay if they don't get healthcare but in the meantime they can still go to the ER and continue this cycle.

Yes, this system is one that needs adjusting, but a wrong answer can be just as bad as no answer. As long as people's health is profitable (as it is in this country), the system will always seem inhumane or unfair.

message 8: by Tanjlisa (new)

Tanjlisa Marie (TanjlisaMarie) | 234 comments Susan wrote: "However, stepping forward even if in the wrong direction, is a step forward.

I guess that is the same mentality the Bush administration had when going into the war with Iraq. 'Let's go after someone, as long as we are trying to pursue someone, it'll be fine'. Well, a trillion + dollars later and countless lives lost...I guess it did make a difference.

message 9: by Tanjlisa (new)

Tanjlisa Marie (TanjlisaMarie) | 234 comments I should be a politician!!

message 10: by Jenny (last edited Nov 17, 2012 05:07AM) (new)

Jenny | 218 comments Mod
Obamacare is not about healthcare. Businesses going out "because of Obamacare" are overacting. The issue is job creators have to deal with too much red tape and taxes and craziness already this is just one more thing they will have to deal with. Our economy is not business friendly and neither party (or neither of the 2 parties that seem to run the land) has a plan to make our country business friendly.

Also, who here really wants the government making their health care decisions? I am not screaming about death panels or anything ridiculous or conspiratorial such as that, I am saying that I would rather be able to afford my own healthcare by not paying a crap ton in taxes for things I do not benefit from. Open up the free markets, the markets are too controlled for any of this crap to work.

That being said, I would like to note, huge corporations like WalMart and McDonalds will have vouchers and special deals because of the amount of people they employ across the country. Smaller (note I said "Smaller" not "small") will not have those same benefits as large companies. This does not help small business, or large business it really just adds way more taxes, regulations, and red tape to an economic system that is already being suffocated by such things.

message 11: by Tanjlisa (new)

Tanjlisa Marie (TanjlisaMarie) | 234 comments Nicely put Jenny. I wouldn't want to start a business because of all the taxes and government regulations. I've echoed this sentiment of too much government throughout the threads in this group!! Bravo, my lady, bravo!!

message 12: by Rock (new)

Rock Ism | 284 comments Mod
Susan wrote: "Honestly, I think the belly aching over ObamaCare strictly comes from the fact that they don't want to be told what to do. I know many individuals that react the same way to the most minor of regu..."

Let's face it, people are idiots. We NEED to be told what to do!.

back to top