February 11, 2014

HHS' Latest Tweak To Obamacare Requires That Employers Certify That You're Not Making Economic Decisions Because Of It
— Gabriel Malor

Thought police.

Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

Although Treasury and HHS insist that employers are not reducing full-time workers because of Obamacare's obvious and perverse incentives, the beleaguered agencies have decided to require employers to certify that they aren't taking perfectly sensible decisions to preserve and protect their businesses.

This is mindless, arbitrary, and unlawful and I would love for someone at Treasury to point me to the statute that allows them to demand these certifications. I suspect that such a statute does not exist (if nothing else, we would have heard about it before now), and that it would violate the U.S. Constitution for IRS to punish a company for declining to make such a certification.

Employers should not have to deal with the uncertainty and cost of contesting Treasury's unlawful demands. And here's an interesting question: what about those businesses who have already made labor adjustments because of Obamacare? Treasury and HHS, are just piling confusion on more confusion as they attempt to save this fundamentally flawed law.

Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:22 AM | Comments (389)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

1 First!

Posted by: Bill at February 11, 2014 09:24 AM (xTgfn)

2 Yeah, this is hideous.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 09:24 AM (IXrOn)

3 2 + 2 = 5

Posted by: Winston Groom at February 11, 2014 09:24 AM (slZTb)

4 But MSNBC has been telling me for a long time now that employers are just using ObamaCare as an excuse to fire people because employers are evil, ruthless, heartless bastards. MSNBC wouldn't lie to the American people, now, would they?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:24 AM (7ObY1)

5 "Ah, see? Not a single job was lost due to Ocare! Isn't that right employers?" *employers sheepishly nod, careful not to show the camera the IRS audit goon behind them...

Posted by: AMDG at February 11, 2014 09:25 AM (t7OO0)

6 For fuck's sake, there go my residual ghost royalties.  Who's going to bother reading me now when they can just follow the HHS? 

Posted by: Das Gespenst Kafkas at February 11, 2014 09:25 AM (A0sHn)

7 Drudge ran this a while ago, and it needs to get more traction.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 09:25 AM (IXrOn)

8 Sometimes, there aren't enough rocks.

Posted by: Darth Cobalt Shiva, Sith Lord at February 11, 2014 09:25 AM (OY/SZ)

9 Fascism, straight up.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:26 AM (rCOda)

10 >>> Sometimes, there aren't enough rocks. Word.

Posted by: fluffy at February 11, 2014 09:26 AM (Ua6T/)

11 geez... making financial decisions based on finances is now illegal, comrades!

Tell the HHS to gofk.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:26 AM (x3YFz)

12 This clearly does not go far enough. All employers should have to pledge that they will allow their businesses to fail rather than detract from the majesty of Obama.

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:26 AM (ysx3E)

13

Gabe ... You just do not get it.

 

We are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of men. The notion of legality is rapidly becoming obsolete.

 

Your argument is simply moot.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (CSqCa)

14 Saudi Arabia: Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice

USA:  Department of Health and Human Services

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (XUKZU)

15 Pinkie swear!

Posted by: Roland THTG at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (QM5S2)

16 C'mon Gabe you are now 0-2 on your c'mon I double dawg dare you with the dems. I appreciate your legal insight that is readable. But, the dems are useless pieces of turds.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humantiarian at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (HVff2)

17 Hey, remember when that loony Ayn Rand predicted a law that would make it illegal to fire people? Yeah, she was one crazy wingnut, all right.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (7ObY1)

18 And if they are shedding workers to avoid the mandate?!?!?!?

What the fuck?  Is it a crime to run a business?

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:27 AM (MNq6o)

19 Ve haff vays to make you certify, comrade.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (XUKZU)

20 All their rules are unruly. You may think that you know what the law is today, maybe. You can have no idea what the law will be tomorrow.

Posted by: toby928© at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (QupBk)

21 So what if they ARE shedding workers to avoid the mandate?

Was there a "anti-dumping" provision in the law?  Hell no.

Getting companies to push people onto the government's teat was the frickin' plan!

Joseph Heller, please pick up the white courtesy phone.  Joseph Heller, pick up the white courtesy phone.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (JpC1K)

22 Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate.


WTF???

Maybe the administration will favor small business with a list of APPROVED factors on which they are still permitted to make business decisions.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (8ZskC)

23 If Treasury can come up with "secret law" on keeping a firm number of employees above a penalty threshold, they can equally find a "secret law" doing same for employers cutting hours of their full-time employees below a given penalty threshold. The fact they didn't for that - and that one party is viewing that as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for those affected indicates the silliness of this attempt at coercion.

Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (XrGnJ)

24 And just because of no particular relevance to this thread......

I ordered three more standard capacity magazines today.

Well, maybe there is a slight amount of relevance.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 11, 2014 09:28 AM (DHj6D)

25 The Kulaks are always guilty, comrade!

Posted by: The Soviet Hat at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (XvHmy)

26 People will just have to close their businesses, if they want to not go to jail?

Posted by: Baldy at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (2bql3)

27 OT:

In other news, Atlanta braces for 8 feet of snow:  " National Weather Service forecasters cited potentially crippling snow and ice accumulations as much as three-quarters of an inch for Atlanta. Wind gusts up to 25 mph could exacerbate problems."

By "8 feet" I mean almost an inch. 
/point
/laugh

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (x3YFz)

28 12 This clearly does not go far enough. All employers should have to pledge that they will allow their businesses to fail rather than detract from the majesty of Obama. Did you catch Jerry "Geraldo" Rivers yelling at Bill O'Reilly that O'Reilly detracted from Obama's majesty by asking him tough interview questions? The fuck.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (7ObY1)

29 So, it's against the law to down size in order to avoid this stupid mandate?

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (NRYdU)

30 Of COURSE they'll defend it. They believe in nothing as much as their inalienable right to force people to make the right decisions.

Loss of 2 million jobs? Funemployment! Freedom!

Defending this won't bother them one bit.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 11, 2014 09:29 AM (4YUWF)

31 "Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury. " Is it illegal to shed full-time workers because of Obamacare? If so, can someone point me to that language in the law?

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (bCEmE)

32 Surveys on the camp sites are almost done.

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (Aif/5)

33 I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on television, however, I do get a sense that this you have to certify you were not even thinking of how you could avoid a tax certification under penalty of perjury may be the bridge too far we have been looking for for someone can get standing and do something about this. it reminds me of how the irs went after people and companies that were using super jumbo insurance policies to avoid estate taxes. nothing illegal about it but the irs went after the people that bought them and the companies that sold 'em for the same thing, trying to avoid a tax even though there was no prohibition from doing as much. I think courts eventually ruled in favor of policy buyers and policy sellers. irs made an effort to make side deals with companies writing policies that they would not sue the companies if employees who wrote policies did not have any assistance with legal fees.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (rDidD)

34 "Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them."

I want to see how they plan on enforcing it!

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (MNq6o)

35 It's a tax.

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (m5+rk)

36 You mean hiring decisions of businesses shouldn't have to run through the Treasury?  The next thing you know, you'll tell me that businesses exist to provide a product that earns a profit.  Everyone knows that businesses really exist to provide jobs.  

Posted by: no good deed at February 11, 2014 09:30 AM (vBhbc)

37 I think this is a turning point. Previously it was common for the administration to not enforce actual criminal laws but now they are going to enforce imaginary laws. This is chaos.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (XUKZU)

38 So, it's against the law to down size in order to avoid this stupid mandate? Who can know? The only thing you can be sure of is that it's somehow illegal to anger the Laird.

Posted by: toby928© at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (QupBk)

39 "12 This clearly does not go far enough. All employers should have to pledge that they will allow their businesses to fail rather than detract from the majesty of Obama."

It's on my to-do list.

Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (4YUWF)

40 The Left does not care about consequences. They will force their utopian visions on others, and make people comply. And when that just makes things worse, they'll blame the "wreckers"Â…

Posted by: The Soviet Hat at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (XvHmy)

41 Seems like the main idea behind the policy is to get employers to shut up about laying people off due to Obamacare's shortfalls. Can't have that in the run up to elections. The rage of the state is increasing, and companies defying the state will be harmed.

Posted by: Pigilito at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (AW99N)

42 of course obama and his idiot minions are too stupid, not even considering people may be hired in order to get over the 50 employee minimum to get into the range for extensions.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (rDidD)

43 RIVERA: What you did was strip him of his, of his majesty, so to speak. O'REILLY: I don't believe a president has majesty. RIVERA: But he does, Bill. O'REILLY: He's not a king.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:31 AM (7ObY1)

44 Are they going to certify that the employees are just there to get health insurance?

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (MNq6o)

45 And now I can certify that the thing I did in their mouth was not for the purpose of my gratification.

And I'm good then...right?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (DHj6D)

46 What if you're not actually downsizing, you're just refusing to expand?

Posted by: cthulhu at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (T1005)

47 The obvious way around it is you justify your firings by saying you're just not selling enough widgets.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (x3YFz)

48 Henceforth, businesses shall certify that an approved photograph of The Leader containing a minimum image area of 225 square inches is posted in a prominent location in all lobbies, entryways and other locations likely to be visited by members of the public.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (8ZskC)

49 I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on television, however, I do get a sense that this you have to certify you were not even thinking of how you could avoid a tax certification under penalty of perjury may be the bridge too far we have been looking for for someone can get standing and do something about this.
-
This is the government that demanded to know the content of your prayers.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (XUKZU)

50 "I declare the foregoing to be true and accurate under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States. HEIL HITLER!"

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (5xmd7)

51 Sarkozy: Why didn't I think of that? Obama: Cuz I'm the prez.

Posted by: Voltaire's Crack at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (Xg2cu)

52 ...and don't forget to hire some black guys because they are black.

Posted by: Barakhenaten I at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (KRJZp)

53 Defend? They don't have to do that. It's just another giant turd floating in punchbowl America. No one with any authority will call them on this crap.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (oFCZn)

54 Did you catch Jerry "Geraldo" Rivers yelling at Bill O'Reilly that O'Reilly detracted from Obama's majesty by asking him tough interview questions?

The fuck.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 01:29 PM (7ObY1)


Yup. That's why I used the word. Perfectly captures how his butt boys view him.

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:32 AM (ysx3E)

55 But, there are no laws in this country that cannot be broken at this point, right SCOAMF? So, sign away, and laugh heartily. What difference does it make? They should reply.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (IXrOn)

56 Great, it looks like they drew straws for who gets to take over the blog and Malor got the short one.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (rCOda)

57 Businesses must now exist to provide health insurance.  Profits are a secondary consideration and to be discouraged.

Posted by: your betters in the dem party at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (bAGA/)

58 People will just have to close their businesses, if they want to not go to jail? Posted by: Baldy at February 11, 2014 01:29 PM (2bql3) They won't be allowed to. The business will be forced to remain open, probably with control assigned to the workers collectiveÂ…

Posted by: The Soviet Hat at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (XvHmy)

59 obama jung il

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (nyPW+)

60 Shouldn't you be fired for not considering the tax implications of a hiring?

Posted by: garrett at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (KRJZp)

61 This reminds me of the longshoremen union that forced a company to agree that the jobs that currently exist at the port in Longbeach can never be done away with.  Those jobs must exist forever. 

Posted by: no good deed at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (vBhbc)

62 Does ACA forbid employers to replace full timers with part-timers? I was not aware of that provision, but I'm not an expert on this. Does anyone know?

Posted by: girldog at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (05V+v)

63 I would love for someone at Treasury to point me to the statute that allows them to demand these certifications.

You have no standing.

Damn, this law shit is easy!~

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (cxs6V)

64 Total coincidence.  Why do you ask?

Posted by: The Company with 98 employees at February 11, 2014 09:33 AM (A0sHn)

65 ...and the response from the Repubes?  crickets.

Posted by: jewells45 at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (l/N7H)

66 so if you are the decisionmaker in your firm and you are thinking about downsizing to avail yourself of this change you better not email or discuss it with anyone anywhere.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (rDidD)

67 Seems like the main idea behind the policy is to get employers to shut up about laying people off due to Obamacare's shortfalls.


Yep. The STFU Rule.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (8ZskC)

68 Directive 10-289

Posted by: toby928© at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (QupBk)

69 Burn, scatter, salt.

Oh no! THOUGHTCRIME!

Posted by: tsj017 at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (4YUWF)

70 "Naw it wasn't to save money on Obamacare...those bums just refused to participate in Minimum Wage Mondays"

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (5xmd7)

71 Was this always part of the law (i.e. was the law written so that employers had to prove they weren't firing due to ACA requirements from the beginning) or is it a new addition by the regulators?
I suspect its always been in there, and the HHS is just pointing that out.
But at the risk of seeming repetitive, I seem to recall a book written with a section about outlawing firing people, something with a guy named Galt in it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (zfY+H)

72 You have no standing. Damn, this law shit is easy!~ Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11 I will bet this is different and lots of people will have standing.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:34 AM (rDidD)

73 Reminds me of this case.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2247766/posts

5th Amendment, Self-Incrimination, & Gun Registration

by Clayton E. Cramer


Posted by: flounder at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (Kkt/i)

74 Simply insane. The Executive is claiming Legislative powers. Treasury and IRS officials are party to writing requirements into law for which they have no legislative authorization. Will the GOP do anything? Boehner said he was "closely monitoring" the situation, didn't he? Will this provoke them into doing something?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (J79eW)

75 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them. Challenge accepted.

Posted by: The MSM at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (FcR7P)

76 exponential curves:  this is looking like one.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (x3YFz)

77 It is the same    directive that demands proof of non-straw buyer status for a gun sale    -   completely made up on the spot

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (0GF2j)

78 >> Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them. These are the same people who defend killing little babies right up to the point the head crowns. I think they're up to the challenge.

Posted by: Andy at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (DRG6e)

79 Directive 10-289 I think we're getting close to Order 66.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:35 AM (rCOda)

80 presidential induced oscillation

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:36 AM (rDidD)

81 Will the GOP do anything? Boehner said he was "closely monitoring" the situation, didn't he? Will this provoke them into doing something?


I am now monitoring the situation even more closely.

*hic*

Posted by: John Boehner at February 11, 2014 09:36 AM (8ZskC)

82 It's not often that we get a confluence of the perfectly creepy and the completely stupid. Savor the moment, folks.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 11, 2014 09:36 AM (659DL)

83 Will the GOP do anything? Boehner said he was "closely monitoring" the situation, didn't he? Will this provoke them into doing something? Posted by: bonhomme at February 11, 2014 01:35 PM (J79eW) Well sure I said that. I mean it sounds like something I'd say. I'm not sure because drinking.

Posted by: John Boehner at February 11, 2014 09:36 AM (oFCZn)

84 You're welcome.  Not a smidgen of corruption -- but a sh8t load.

Posted by: Bronco Bama at February 11, 2014 09:37 AM (hOtJL)

85 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: Genesis 19:20-32 at February 11, 2014 09:37 AM (PYAXX)

86 The Affordable Carnac Act. How magnificent! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_dT0wsrGI

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 09:37 AM (IXrOn)

87 What if you're not actually downsizing, you're just refusing to expand?

Posted by: cthulhu

Have you donated to the cause, comrade? If so, you're in the clear.

If not ... it gets complicated.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 09:37 AM (cxs6V)

88 I will bet this is different and lots of people will have standing. But we have this signed document (*waves paper*) that says you didn't get fired!

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2014 09:37 AM (FcR7P)

89 Whoops. Abraham arguing with God sock off.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (PYAXX)

90 including the "certify under penalty of perjury" was plain old stupid. now they are going to have to revise their revision.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (rDidD)

91

This is no more the damn "turning point" than anything else. This is just another increment.

 

What's going to happen ? A fucking Opposition Party spring into action ? An Insatiable Media take the news to the public ? Social Shaming of those who support this ?

 

Some of you keep hoping for a damn Deus Ex Machina. It ain't comin'.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (CSqCa)

92 You are allowed to have no more than one wet dram per month unless your dream consists of GLBT sex.

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (XUKZU)

93 If I had a company with 60 employees I would break it into two companies with 30 employees each.  One company contracts with the other.

Fuck these arrogant assholes.

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (MNq6o)

94 What if you're not actually downsizing, you're just refusing to expand?

Posted by: cthulhu


Does the word "Wrecker" mean anything to you, comrade owner?

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:38 AM (8ZskC)

95 I didn't fire those workers, I liberated them from job-ness.

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (FcR7P)

96 If I had a company with 60 employees I would break it into two companies with 30 employees each. One company contracts with the other. Fuck these arrogant assholes. Posted by: Dang at February 11 has been going on since the law passed with lots of cos.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (rDidD)

97 F.A. Hayek's prediction that a socialist state inevitably mutates into a totalitarian one is coming true before our eyes.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (8ZskC)

98 Furthermore, in order to stabilize the economy no business may fire any employee. No employee may quit his job. All expenditures must be equal to the previous years expenditures. No one may produce less, or more than they did the previous year.

BWAHAHAHA!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (0q2P7)

99 What a blatantly political move by Treasury.  If only they were capable of shame...

What is the penalty for saying that yes, they did shed employees to avoid the Obamacare mandate?

Is it merely to give the administration a talking point?  "See?  Employers certified that they didn't lay off employees because of Obamacare and not because they were afraid of repercussions!  So there!"

I mean, being under penalty of perjury, nobody ever cheats on their taxes ever.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (SY2Kh)

100
Wait.... wut???

I thought all the jobs lost were because the oppressed folks were casting aside their chains of job oppression.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 11, 2014 09:39 AM (nELVU)

101 We're just going to go ahead and federalize all HR departments to save you the headache.

Posted by: Brocko the Magnificent at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (rCOda)

102 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them. We're only looking out for the poor and the middle class. Those evil plutocrats are only interested in buying a new Maserati or new 10,000 sq ft mansion. We shouldn't be surprised that Republicans are, once again, siding with Big Business against We the People; it's typical; but we are anyway.

Posted by: Democrats at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (PYAXX)

103 404Care: Oak Leaf with Clusterfuck cluster. With added clusters for each change. Photoshop & bumper sticker material.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (E7Zh9)

104 Serious question: Were the abuses of Mad King George, which led to The Rev*luti*n, any worse than the abuses of Mad King Barry? Because I've read a ton about the founding of this country and right now, King George seems like a punter compared to Barry.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (7ObY1)

105 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.
Posted by Gabriel Malor


Here's the funny part; they don't have to.

It's.Der.Law!

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (cxs6V)

106 Making effective business decisions bases on employee costs and market restraints is now illegal.
 

This must be the dawning of the age of Aquarious.


Or some shit.





Posted by: dananjcon at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (NpXoL)

107 It is bad enough to have a king.  It is worse when he is an idiot.

Posted by: Thatch at February 11, 2014 09:40 AM (qYvEa)

108 Long ago there was a court case where it was ruled that you are allowed to structure your financial affairs in order to reduce your taxes i.e. non-fraudulent tax avoidance is legal. So it seems reasonable that businesses have the same legal freedom to avoid other government mandated fees and costs as well.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (XkotV)

109 And yet... the costs of Obamacare IS a business decision.... So... just how does that work?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (84gbM)

110 Wait a sec, doesn't downsizing cure employees of their job lock problems? I'm having trouble keeping up with the left's spin on this.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (rCOda)

111 If I had a company with 60 employees I would break it into two companies with 30 employees each. One company contracts with the other. We uh, are making that illegal too. "By the power of Obama, duly certified in me, I create this new codicil of law."

Posted by: Treasury and IRS[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (J79eW)

112 >>>Some of you keep hoping for a damn Deus Ex Machina. It ain't comin'.

Oh I believe there *might* be one coming. But were not going to like what that machine does.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (0q2P7)

113 Long ago there was a court case where it was ruled that you are allowed to structure your financial affairs in order to reduce your taxes i.e. non-fraudulent tax avoidance is legal. So it seems reasonable that businesses have the same legal freedom to avoid other government mandated fees and costs as well. Posted by: Mætenloch at February 11 yeah, what he said

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:41 AM (rDidD)

114 90 including the "certify under penalty of perjury" was plain old stupid. now they are going to have to revise their revision.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 01:38 PM (rDidD)

Yeah, about that 5th Amendment....

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (x3YFz)

115 Monitoring the situation like i monitored Game Of Thrones last weekend, I'm sure. And having about as much impact on the clusterf0q

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (m5+rk)

116 Sorry, but you have to Super-Size it.

Posted by: Barack at the Drive-Thru at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (KRJZp)

117 Were the abuses of Mad King George, which led to The Rev*luti*n, any worse than the abuses of Mad King Barry? No, they weren't. Indeed, as seen by how many countries still claim some ties to the UK, England wasn't all that oppressive an oppressor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (PYAXX)

118 105 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them. Posted by Gabriel Malor Here's the funny part; they don't have to. It's.Der.Law! Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2014 01:40 PM (cxs6V) /looks at his Kids... And its.... a.... Tax!!! yeah... that's it... a Tax...

Posted by: Judge Roberts at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (84gbM)

119 I don't get it...what's the point? To get documentation to back up their lies?

Posted by: BignJames at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (ZNQKl)

120 I am still fairly confident this isn't a new decision, that it was already in the ACA and the announcement is just applying it to this situation.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (zfY+H)

121 Mmm Mmm Mmm.



How long til were fighting in the streets for milk and toilet paper?


 

Posted by: dananjcon at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (NpXoL)

122 ???? And I'd like to see companies that have to report to stockholder or just wives figure out how to defend not making money?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (t3UFN)

123 I'm monitoring the hell out of this fifth of bourbon. HIC!

Posted by: The Weeping Boner at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (7ObY1)

124 How come after hanging around a smart military blog I have to learn of a cool website out on the street? flightradar24.com The map shows all the airplanes currently flying, most in real time some with a 5 minute delay. Click on one and it gives you all the information on the plane, shows the flight path, etc. Apparently, the phone app lets you point the phone at a passing plane to identify it and give you all the info. Been playing with it all morning. And yeah, it's off topic, but it's fun.

Posted by: jwest at February 11, 2014 09:42 AM (u2a4R)

125 My friends, we have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

Posted by: John McCain at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (MT22W)

126 Can't I just finish my waffle?

Posted by: King. Barakakakan I at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (Aif/5)

127 >>>This must be the dawning of the age of Aquarious.

Ayn Rand. The world's first Atheist Prophet.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches. at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (0q2P7)

128 I will bet this is different and lots of people will have standing. Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 01:34 PM (rDidD) Once I got over my wtfingf are you even kidding me with this shit response, that was my reaction. This is a mandate that requires an affirmative action on the part of a particular entity/person. Said entity/person should have standing. I've mentioned before that my old bosses made really damn sure to stay right under the 50 employee limit to avoid all the extra compliance costs that arises once you breach that threshold.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (VtjlW)

129
It's.Derp.Law!

Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 11, 2014 01:40 PM (cxs6V)

fixed.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (x3YFz)

130 Where is Ace? Hope on vacay.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Duchess of Something at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (baL2B)

131 Sure this is unlawful and large employers will figure a way around it, but the smaller ones can't afford to. Good bye, weak, tepid recovery summer 5 (or 6?)...hello crash!

Posted by: MJ at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (oari7)

132 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them. Posted by Gabriel Malor Here's the funny part; they don't have to. It's.Der.Law! They may want to, if only to keep the pitchforks at bay.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (E7Zh9)

133 Penalty for firing people for the wrong reason: Torn to pieces by wild bureaucrats!

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 09:43 AM (RD7QR)

134 "If I had a company with 60 employees I would break it into two companies with 30 employees each. One company contracts with the other." I'm pretty sure the ownership test is so restrictive as to make this near impossible.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:44 AM (rCOda)

135 Well, we're not soft! We're about to issue a very strongly worded statement about Obamacare!

Posted by: WalrusRex at February 11, 2014 09:44 AM (XUKZU)

136 It is bad enough to have a king. It is worse when he is an idiot.
Posted by: Thatch


A thousand time THIS!  Retard rule.  Show me the law that says you are not allowed to downsize.  Fucking whims coming out of this jug eared mother fucker and he's pretending they have any impact of a law passed by congress.  Fuck him all the way to hell.

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:44 AM (MNq6o)

137 under penalty of perjury. What if they don't? Is the gov't going to bring a case against for 'falsely claiming' they let go of workers due to the costs of Obamacare?

Posted by: t-bird at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (FcR7P)

138 Oh and how the hell does this mesh with SEC disclosure requirements? Remember when Our God King got so pissed off when various companies filed the mandatory impact statements when the ACA passed? Yeah. That.

Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, oh mighty SMOD at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (VtjlW)

139 Will the GOP do anything? Boehner said he was "closely monitoring" the situation, didn't he? Will this provoke them into doing something?

Do what?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (SY2Kh)

140 Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 01:29 PM (x3YFz) doubled over concerning 8' of snow, errr I mean a tad of snow/ice

Posted by: Misanthropic Humantiarian at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (HVff2)

141 108 Long ago there was a court case where it was ruled that you are allowed to structure your financial affairs in order to reduce your taxes i.e. non-fraudulent tax avoidance is legal. So it seems reasonable that businesses have the same legal freedom to avoid other government mandated fees and costs as well.

Posted by: Mætenloch at February 11, 2014 01:41 PM (XkotV)[i/]



But... the emperor hath decreed!!

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (ysx3E)

142 Seriously, Gabe,

In what universe is the Left ever obligated to provide an affirmative defense of their actions?


Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (cxs6V)

143 I've mentioned before that my old bosses made really damn sure to stay right under the 50 employee limit to avoid all the extra compliance costs that arises once you breach that threshold. Posted by: alexthechick - Come to us, yeah, as inept as obama and his minions are, as evidenced by obamacare, I would not even be slightly surprised if some lower level staffer put this in on a whim thinking it was a brilliant idea; probably also plays dungeons and dragons and viewed it as some sort of magical spell.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (rDidD)

144 Every day they are not just admitting that obamacare fails, but that capitalism succeeds. The only way around it, is to silence the truth. Amazing. CK finally called them out as a banana republic, but, it's much, much worse than that.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (IXrOn)

145

How come after hanging around a smart military blog I have to learn of a cool website out on the street?

 

Because it doesn't have boobehs.

Posted by: The Company with 98 employees at February 11, 2014 09:45 AM (A0sHn)

146 oh shit... where's the barrel?

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (ysx3E)

147 Indeed, as seen by how many countries still claim some ties to the UK, England wasn't all that oppressive an oppressor.


One thing that struck me while reading about the history of the American Revolution was how trivial some of the provocations seemed.  Those Founding Fathers were a prickly bunch.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (8ZskC)

148 Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 01:45 PM (ysx3E)

----

soooooo close....

Posted by: The Barrel at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (nELVU)

149 Some of you keep hoping for a damn Deus Ex Machina. It ain't comin'. Oh I believe there *might* be one coming. But were not going to like what that machine does. Posted by: MikeTheMoose Laughing Maniacally While Throwing Matches If I can point that machine towards the left, I'll be laughing like a retarded hyena on helium.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (E7Zh9)

150 >> How come after hanging around a smart military blog I have to learn of a cool website out on the street? >> flightradar24.com I've been using that for a while. Neat stuff. And "favorite apps" is good topic for a weekend post. We'll make that happen.

Posted by: Andy at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (QDCtP)

151 /sock fail

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (A0sHn)

152 Duck Season, Wabbit season Less Filling, Tastes Great Left Twix/Right Twix It's a law/It's a tax "It's whatever it wants to be." - Dr. Egon Spengler

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:46 AM (rCOda)

153 Frankly, I'd like businesses to call the Treasury's bluff and state publicly and repeatedly that the loss in jobs is caused by having to comply with Obamacare. And then take the case to court. Discovery would be a stone cold bitch. Until Justice Roberts decides that the perjury penalty is simply another tax, at which point it's time for the SMOD voodoo dance party.

Posted by: physics geek at February 11, 2014 09:47 AM (MT22W)

154 "Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them."
Surely you jest. And I did call you surely.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 11, 2014 09:47 AM (reoHU)

155

This destruction of Constitutional order  is  being  brought to you by 13 million uninsured  (4% of the population) ,  most of who are probably living in blue states,  and the  totalitarian  fascists  of the Democrat party.

 

Posted by: MTF at February 11, 2014 09:47 AM (B5y+v)

156 One thing that struck me while reading about the history of the American Revolution was how trivial some of the provocations seemed. Those Founding Fathers were a prickly bunch.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 01:46 PM (8ZskC)


----


I think it speaks volumes to how inured we are to this shit.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 11, 2014 09:47 AM (nELVU)

157 I've got a new idea. Let's just make shit up as we go along. Nobody will bother to call us on it.

Posted by: Kathleen at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (cgtTL)

158 Nothing like outlawing the consequences of your won poor law, huh?

Also, you don't think Obama will selectively use this to harass companies he doesn't like, do you?

I forget what Ayn Rand called it in Atlas Shrugged, but this is sounding like that law that forbade downsizing when companies were going under. For the workers who deserved a job!

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (POpqt)

159 You guys always jump right to armageddon or civil war. But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (nyPW+)

160 Can you even imagine how Holder's doj will come down on the first company who swears to this?


Like a fat lady on a cupcake.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (BZAd3)

161 I'm pretty sure the ownership test is so restrictive as to make this near impossible. Posted by: Burn the Witch

You can own two companies.  Say one of the businesses that will do the payroll and invoicing is being separated out so it can pursue other clients for their payroll and invoicing needs.  "But that part of the business just isn't panning out the way we thought it would."

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (MNq6o)

162 Similarly, there was a news item going around the bogs last week about how some doctors' offices are insisting that patients fill out a "racial identification" form before the can be treated. When someone complained, the doctors showed them language in the ACA which required the collection of racial data on patients. There was much outrage in the rightosphere over this. Rightfully so -- that is, if it really was a requirement for patients to fill ot the form. HOWEVER, a closer read of the ACA language revealed that DOCTORS are required to ASK patients for this information, but NO MENTION is made of the patients needing to supply the info as a prerequisite for treatment. In other words, the exchange could go like this: "Doctor, I have a broken arm. Fix me." "Before I do, the government insists that I ask you what race you are." "Fuck you. Fix my arm." OK, we'll start with an X-ray...." In other words, the only requirement is that the question be asked; there is no requirement for it to be answered. Relating that to this latest Orwellian easter egg: All employers should just write "Fuck you" nex to the attestation box. I'd like to see a million businesses get prosecuted for that.

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 09:48 AM (+cx5n)

163 so, do our legal eagles think it is possible the court may use this as an opportunity to whack all of obamacare? if someone gets all the way to the court with a case based on this certify you are not trying to legally avoid a tax under penalty of perjury thing, is roberts going to have a chance to redeem himself and do something based on the dozens of lawless modifications?

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:49 AM (rDidD)

164 I'm surprised that I'm surprised. 

Posted by: shillelagh at February 11, 2014 09:49 AM (hRzu2)

165 Maybe this is another example of finding out what's in the law after it's passed?

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:50 AM (ysx3E)

166 >>But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens.

Agenda 21.
And also for mother earth, naturally.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 09:50 AM (POpqt)

167 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.


Let us be clear, any opposition to our desires, or facts which disrupt our agenda, are racist, sexist, heterocisnormative, misogynistic, xenophobic, corporatist Wall Street fat catish, 1% corporate jets, and/or mean in whatever combination we deem necessary to shut you up.

Posted by: The Democrats at February 11, 2014 09:50 AM (L8r/r)

168 'What have you done with Julia?' said Winston.
O'Brien smiled again 'She betrayed you, Winston. Immediately-unreservedly. I have seldom seen anyone come over to us so promptly. You would hardly recognize her if you saw her. All her rebelliousness, her deceit, her folly, her dirty-mindedness-everything has been burned out of her. It was a perfect conversion, a textbook case.'
'You tortured her.'
O'Brien left this unanswered.
-1984 by George Orwell written in 1949

Posted by: Erowmero at February 11, 2014 09:50 AM (OONaw)

169 Counterrevolutionary subversive and economic treasonous behaviors will not be tolerated, comrades. There are no mistakes made by communists and authoritarians we will not relive. Interesting times. Very.

Posted by: Beagle at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (sOtz/)

170 "Maybe this is another example of finding out what's in the law after it's passed?" Something tells me that it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving for quite a long time.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (rCOda)

171 The next Republican president should pass comprehensive immigration reform then deport all of the Democrats. Why the fork not?

Posted by: MJ at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (oari7)

172 I fully expect that by the time I am old enough to tap my 401K, I will be expected to certify, in the same manner, that I did not save that money with the intent of circumventing the tax requirements that I might otherwise have been expected to meet - i.e., that I did not intend to defraud the government out of "money that was not mine to begin with".

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (Djwm9)

173 One thing that struck me while reading about the history of the American Revolution was how trivial some of the provocations seemed. Those Founding Fathers were a prickly bunch. Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at February 11, 2014 01:46 PM (8ZskC) ---- I think it speaks volumes to how inured we are to this shit. Posted by: fixerupper We fought a revolution over a 2% tax on bakery goods.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (E7Zh9)

174 I couldn't find the text in the actual rule. So there's that.

Posted by: p0s3r at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (Sn5UN)

175 165 Maybe this is another example of finding out what's in the law after it's passed?

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 01:50 PM (ysx3E)


Yeah, because there's going to be a whole bunch of changes to the law after it's passed.   We shoulda seen this coming. 

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 09:51 AM (BZAd3)

176 Huh? Wha...? Hey, gay football player or something.  Ready for Hillary!

Posted by: Low Information Voter at February 11, 2014 09:52 AM (vgIRn)

177
**stamps feet... pouty stance**


But I dont WANT to live in interesting times.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 11, 2014 09:52 AM (nELVU)

178 But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens.

Five years?  Not even close.

The shit doesn't hit the fan until entitlement spending becomes unsustainable.  That'll happen around 20-30 years from now, depending on what's done in the interim.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 09:52 AM (SY2Kh)

179 159 You guys always jump right to armageddon or civil war. But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens. Posted by: Soothsayer That shit will end the moment the first Berkeley progressive has her Volvo seized and her million-dollar cottage, on which she's paid 30 years of mortgage payments, yanked out from under her to become Section 8 housing for gang members. The Socialist Experiment will collapse the moment it hits the experimenters.

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 09:52 AM (+cx5n)

180 "Before I do, the government insists that I ask you what race you are." "Fuck you. Fix my arm." OK, we'll start with an X-ray...." In other words, the only requirement is that the question be asked; there is no requirement for it to be answered. Relating that to this latest Orwellian easter egg: All employers should just write "Fuck you" nex to the attestation box. I'd like to see a million businesses get prosecuted for that. FYNQ.

Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 09:52 AM (E7Zh9)

181 having to pass the law to find out what is in it is infinitely better than the game we are in now; that is simply buying a law site unseen. Now we are guessing how many fingers obama is holding up behind his back - for money.

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 11, 2014 09:53 AM (rDidD)

182 "But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens."

You betcha!

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at February 11, 2014 09:53 AM (4YUWF)

183 165 Maybe this is another example of finding out what's in the law after it's passed?

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 01:50 PM (ysx3E)

lol... nonono.  This is what the prognazis call "A living law."

Meaning that even what was passed is subject to the whim of one branch of govt.

The entire system of law passing in this nation has been compromised beyond repair.

law.  whim.  no difference.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (x3YFz)

184 VDH on Miller.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (BZAd3)

185 I fully expect that by the time I am old enough to tap my 401K. ..... it will no longer be MY 401k.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (nELVU)

186 "Further, Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury. " Hey, lets make them certify that they don't make ANY business choices based on economic reasons. Clearly they should only make business choices on "compassion" and "fairness" and nothing else. Anyone know a business run on that model? I'm looking for something to short, and that seems like a good pick if there's one out there.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (2zHxV)

187 The Tea Tax.... was 3 Pence, on a product that was approx. 3 Shillings in price... 12 Pence to a Shilling.... Thus... the Tea Tax was about 8%.... Think on that folks... our Forefathers... and my direct Ancestor, revolted against a dominant World Superpower.... over an 8% Tax...

Posted by: Romeo13, whistling Yankee Doodle at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (84gbM)

188 People will just have to close their businesses, if they want to not go to jail?
Posted by: Baldy

And the medical professionals who refuse to accept Medicaid patients?  The docs who close their practices?  Who gets the bullet first?  Republican business owners?  Stroke of the pen - LAW OF THE LAND.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (JBggj)

189 "The Socialist Experiment will collapse the moment it hits the experimenters." I'd say the experimenters will do what they've always done - simply immunize themselves from their experiment.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (rCOda)

190 My word is law. My word is truth. My word is reality.

Posted by: His Majesty Obama the First at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (4YUWF)

191 This is how I'd do it: First, impose a small VAT tax. Then a big one when the The Peasants get used to it. Second, all property taxes will quadruple. Businesses will be taxed 100%, ie no more profit. Third, All payrolls will be issued from US govt. Then, instead of receiving a paycheck from your employer, you'll receive an allowance from Government.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 09:54 AM (nyPW+)

192 >>Anyone know a business run on that model?

The federal government.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 09:55 AM (POpqt)

193 Some of you keep hoping for a damn Deus Ex Machina. It ain't comin'.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 01:38 PM (CSqCa)


If you can read this blog, you are the resistance.

Posted by: John Connor at February 11, 2014 09:55 AM (hO9ad)

194 "I fully expect that by the time I am old enough to tap my 401K. ..... it will no longer be MY 401k." That's because you didn't build it, sillyhead.

Posted by: Barackenaten I at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (rCOda)

195 We've always been at war with Eastasia

Posted by: Truck Monkey at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (32Ze2)

196 Sit on your fucking hands GOP

Posted by: RWC at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (fWAjv)

197 Posted by: rickb223 at February 11, 2014 01:52 PM (E7Zh9) When they ask me my Race??? I say HUMAN... When they ask my ethnicity? I say either Pict.... or Mutt...

Posted by: Romeo13, whistling Yankee Doodle at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (84gbM)

198 Hey, remember when that loony Ayn Rand predicted a law that would make it illegal to fire people?

Yeah, she was one crazy wingnut, all right.




This is worse than that.  That law was never passed, and yet the force of it is in effect.


Posted by: grognard at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (/29Nl)

199 FINALLY!!! Something I think I can get 218 votes on! Where's Ryan???

Posted by: John Boehner's "principles" at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (H6AH+)

200
eh, its unenforceable.  even for the IRS.

but a fascism attempt it is.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (n0DEs)

201 We're living in a fascist  country  now.  The Constitution is moot. 

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (kPiYr)

202 You guys always jump right to armageddon or civil war.

But in between now and then will come the end of private property. The plan is unfolding right before your eyes. I give it 5 years until it happens.

Posted by: Soothsayer

There will be no end of anything. There will be no grand marker or sign.

Just a slow, ever-changing order.

End of private property? No.

Have you paid your property tax? How about that abatement fee? Have you hired my brother to check for Red Tailed Snipes? Is your property safe for trespassers? Do you have salt on your property? Have you labeled every hazard on your property? Is that gas? I think I smell gas.

There's no end to anything. Just more penalties.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (cxs6V)

203 I think we have to take into account the fact that the Founders originally saw themselves as proud Englishmen, who felt ignored and betrayed of their rights as Englishmen once they moved across the pond. If The Crown had just given them some representation in Parliament, the Rev*luti*n could probably have been avoided. In other words, we exist as a nation largely because the Founders got dissed.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (7ObY1)

204 OT: Is it just me, or is it incredibly tacky for people to invite someone to  a party in which they must pay a not tiny fee to get in? I got invited to something, and it is more money than I should spend, and it makes me mad the stupid public school teachers (who make 5x me) who re doing it can't pay for the stupid thing, and I am reminded how broke I am... Luckily, I wont feel guilty not going.

Posted by: Baldy at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (2bql3)

205 Yes, require your company's CPA to attest that hiring decisions are not affected by costs of employment. Brilliant!

Posted by: wooga at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (evuqY)

206 It was not supposed to be an instruction manual, dammit!

Posted by: Ayn Rand at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (zoehZ)

207 The effect of this move on the US Chamber of Commerce and business owners up and down the food chain will be interesting.  I'm thinking - more radicalized.  We need a leader, too.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 09:56 AM (JBggj)

208 Time to stock up on toilet paper. And maybe practice standing in line for hours at a time.

Posted by: Beagle at February 11, 2014 09:58 AM (sOtz/)

209 I'd there a box where you can check "You're damn right that's why I cut them to part time!" Its happening all over. The Invisible Hand has alway been more powerful than the Iron Fist.

Posted by: MostlyRight at February 11, 2014 09:58 AM (spjO5)

210 Five years? Not even close.

The shit doesn't hit the fan until entitlement spending becomes unsustainable. That'll happen around 20-30 years from now, depending on what's done in the interim.

***

On the WH side, you have Barky. On the Fed side, you have Yellin. On the GOP side you have Boehner.

I think you overestimated your timeline by a factor of ten or so.

Posted by: B at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (VC56G)

211 You know, I am starting to get a little depressed about the direction this country is headed. Maybe it's me but I don't think this Obama fellow - historic first aside - doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Posted by: real joe at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (ysx3E)

212 207 The effect of this move on the US Chamber of Commerce and business owners up and down the food chain will be interesting. I'm thinking - more radicalized. We need a leader, too.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 01:56 PM (JBggj)


The USCoC will knuckle under once they get their legalized alien workforce. Everybody has a price.

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (RD7QR)

213

Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.

 

As if the MFM would let a Democrat be smeared with this.

 

I've got to hand it to you, Gabe - when you do comedy, it's gold!

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (zF6Iw)

214 Can you even imagine how Holder's doj will come down on the first company who swears to this?


Like a fat lady on a cupcake.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 01:48 PM (BZAd3)



Hey! I resemble that remark! 



Posted by: Rosie O'Donnell at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (NpXoL)

215 Heh, so Ayn Rand undershot?

Posted by: Barackenaten I at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (rCOda)

216 It was not supposed to be an instruction manual, dammit!

Posted by: Ayn Rand at February 11, 2014 01:56 PM (zoehZ)


-----


Welcom to the club Ayn.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 11, 2014 09:59 AM (nELVU)

217

Release the lobbyists!

 

 

Yeah, I don't think this one is going to stick around for very long before the guys with the very heavy checkbooks start saying how displeased they are.  Might stop attending an Obama fundraiser or two and that would really attract attention.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - President's Day Sale - All Red Hot Rage 15% Off! at February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (hLRSq)

218 >>Have you paid your property tax? How about that abatement fee? Have you hired my brother to check for Red Tailed Snipes? Is your property safe for trespassers? Do you have salt on your property? Have you labeled every hazard on your property? Is that gas? I think I smell gas.


Oh, and you can't build on it, or subdivide it and sell the parcels off because of open space requirements.

And you can't put farm animal on it because of EPA regulations on methane gases.

And, say, we have a guy who thinks he could put it to better use as the site of a casino/mall/parking lot, and since this will generate more tax revenue, you now MUST sell it or we'll just take it for free....

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (POpqt)

219 Exactly how I laid it out in my 3-step 5-year plan to bleed you dry. By the end, I, Government, control all the cash flow. And all property owners are deep into debt with me until I finally seize their property for default. You guys are lucky I'm not your ruler, I'll say that.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (nyPW+)

220 Is it just me, or is it incredibly tacky for people to invite someone to a party in which they must pay a not tiny fee to get in?


Very tacky. 


It's like inviting friends over for dinner and then asking them to help pay for the meal.


Posted by: EC at February 11, 2014 10:00 AM (GQ8sn)

221 Who's going to stop Obama and the Feds from enforcing this unlawful ruling?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:01 AM (ZPrif)

222 Whats interesting about this whole thing... It says that employers between 50 and 100 employees will NOT be covered by the mandate.. That means that those employers CAN and WILL stop giving Health insurance to their workers. So those employees will then sign up under O'care... where they will get SUBSIDIES... but will help the O'care numbers look better.

Posted by: Romeo13, whistling Yankee Doodle at February 11, 2014 10:01 AM (84gbM)

223 Good grief.

Posted by: wth at February 11, 2014 10:01 AM (wAQA5)

224 The Saunders article on the sidebar makes the common mistake of assuming the "war on women" is about anything other than abortion and BC. Trying to get mileage out of "hypocrisy" claims without arguing those specifically gets you nowhere.

Posted by: Jeff at February 11, 2014 10:02 AM (vd6Gd)

225 It was not supposed to be an instruction manual, dammit!

Posted by: Ayn Rand

Instruction?

Ok, how about destruction?

Posted by: Pres. I, Me, Mine [/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 10:02 AM (cxs6V)

226 Soma means marijuana in Peruvian.

Posted by: Aldous Huxley at February 11, 2014 10:02 AM (sOtz/)

227 221 Who's going to stop Obama and the Feds from enforcing this unlawful ruling?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 02:01 PM (ZPrif)


ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzTAX! Oh Elena, more cocoa butter!zzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts takes a nap at February 11, 2014 10:02 AM (RD7QR)

228 Don't strip away his majesty!!!

Posted by: Gerdildo Retardo at February 11, 2014 10:03 AM (wAQA5)

229 t was not supposed to be an instruction manual, dammit! Posted by: Ayn Rand SECONDED!

Posted by: George Orwell at February 11, 2014 10:03 AM (7ObY1)

230 Hey, lets make them certify that they don't make ANY business choices based on economic reasons. Clearly they should only make business choices on "compassion" and "fairness" and nothing else.

Anyone know a business run on that model? I'm looking for something to short, and that seems like a good pick if there's one out there.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 11, 2014 01:54 PM (2zHxV)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

What employers could do is counter the left's propaganda  of how wonderful it is to be unemployed now.  Employers could just say that the people they fire were released  from the drudgery of work   to enjoy the  "new"  American dream. 

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2014 10:03 AM (kPiYr)

231 In other words, we exist as a nation largely because the Founders got dissed. Read about Benjamin Franklin's snit with the Penns (as in Pennsylvania). Basically the Penn family were given the land by the king, and they taxed the sh*t out of the colonials and ran the place like any good Russian mafia Don's kid would. Franklin went to England to plead their case and at one point he was called to a special meeting where they called him a liar and smeared him any way possible. He came back with a steely resolve.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (J79eW)

232 Where are the people who are supposed to be protecting us from this gangster government?

Posted by: d_fitz at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (fYY4S)

233

Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.

 

----------

 

In the 2012 GOP primary in Virginia, the Establishment-heavy GOP tried to get voters who wanted to vote in the Republican primary to sign a statement pledging to vote Republican regardless of the outcome of the primary.

 

Why should the Democrats try to defend this when philosophically a big chunk of the GOP is right there with them?

Posted by: @JohnTant at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (eytER)

234 189 "The Socialist Experiment will collapse the moment it hits the experimenters." I'd say the experimenters will do what they've always done - simply immunize themselves from their experiment. Posted by: Burn the Witch But how can you prove or ascertain which should be immune? Take, for example, some liberal enclave like Berkeley or San Francisco or Madison. Even in a leftward wave election like 2008, only ~75% of the voters voted for socialist candidates (i.e. Obama). The other 25%, shocking as it may seem in a place like Berkeley or Madison, voted against him. So the time comes to seize private property, but "the experimenters want to immunize themselves" from the seizures. How could they (or anyone) prove that they are amongst those deserving immunization? And how could they prove that their neighbor voted "the wrong way" and thus deserves to have all possessions seized? Before we have 'selective seizures,' we'd have to first destroy voting privacy and privacy or conscience.

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (+cx5n)

235 As for the main post, seems like a nothing. Employers are pretty much free to give whatever reason even if its not really the case.

Posted by: Jeff at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (vd6Gd)

236 A supposed senator, Cantwell, just publicly said she'll use her taxing powers to threaten the NFL with changing the name of the Redskins. The power to tax is all the power Govt needs to do Anything.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (nyPW+)

237 privacy or conscience = privacy OF conscience.

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 10:04 AM (+cx5n)

238 I'm honestly confused at the mechanics of how something this lawless is overturned. I assume most business will comply because ... because the IRS told them, too. No business wants to pick a fight with the IRS. Even if a few fight it, won't it take years to win through the courts? The practical effect is this unlawful rule will be enforced for years, no? Only hope is that some judge blocks enforcement, right?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:05 AM (ZPrif)

239 Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 02:00 PM (POpqt) Unfortunately you're right. And its getting worse, not better. Before we can even talk about getting rid of zoning laws (or at least paring them down to reasonable limits) and property taxes, we have to gut the FSA.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 10:05 AM (PYAXX)

240 Can someone make sure Gabe gets this? Gabe earlier this morning stated that there was not a stand down order given during Benghazi. Well there is conflict about that in the latest Senate Intel Committee report. which is majority Dem) *If* you read the footnotes (where things are often buried and where the more controversial information usually is) in the report released just this January 15th. Here is the particular reference. According to informal notes obtained from the CIA, the security team left for the Annex without the formal approval of the Chief of Base, see attachments to e-mail from CIA staff to CIA staff- However, a Memorandum for The Record prepared by the Deputy Chief of Base specifically states that the Chief "authorized the move" and the Chief told the Committee: "We launched QRT [Quick Reaction Force] as soon as possible down to the State [Department] compound." the Memorandum for The Record prepared by the Deputy Chief of Base could be the usual CYA. IOW I wouldn't be as sure as Gabe that the stand down order has been disproven. You can go to the Senate Intel Committee release and read it for yourself however--here is a link to it: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 10:05 AM (RJMhd)

241 234 Berkeley is more left than you assume. Roseanne Barr beat Romney.

Posted by: Jeff at February 11, 2014 10:05 AM (vd6Gd)

242 This is all very France-like.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:05 AM (ZPrif)

243 We really are becoming a banana republic.

The problem with this shit is it earns populist points from the howling masses. 

Obama and Democrats are going to try and blame the exodus of people with insurance on greedy CEOs and their private jets, not their idiotic public policy.  And the media will be right there, interviewing the CEOs as they're getting in their Mercedes. 

So Republicans get the enviable task of defending companies that want to cut employee pay and benefits.

The media has already started with the AOL nonsense, suddenly its all about what an asshole the CEO is.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (O/mny)

244 235 As for the main post, seems like a nothing. Employers are pretty much free to give whatever reason even if its not really the case.

Posted by: Jeff at February 11, 2014 02:04 PM (vd6Gd)


If given under penalty of perjury it's basically a Sword of Damocles; the IRS can swoop in at any time and use that to slap a business down for any reason.

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (RD7QR)

245 I don't understand any of this, but can't states sue Holder (whom I assume is in charge of the legal blowback) on behalf of their business owners?

Posted by: Seems legit at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (A98Xu)

246 Not to worry.... Repubs will be hot after this...


Right after the week off that congress gets for freaking president's day.  A whole freaking week.  And we wonder how we could be so screwed.

Posted by: LoneStarHeeb at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (BZAd3)

247 Before we have 'selective seizures,' we'd have to first destroy voting privacy and privacy or conscience. Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 02:04 PM (+cx5n) We're.... making a list... checking it twice... because... we do know whose Naughty and Nice... Tax seizure is coming... to townnnnnnnn....

Posted by: NSA and IRS Glee Club at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (84gbM)

248 Where are the people who are supposed to be protecting us from this gangster government?

Posted by: d_fitz at February 11, 2014 02:04 PM (fYY4S)


---


..... working for the govt.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (nELVU)

249 Oh, and you can't build on it, or subdivide it and sell the parcels off because of open space requirements.

And you can't put farm animal on it because of EPA regulations on methane gases.

And, say, we have a guy who thinks he could put it to better use as the site of a casino/mall/parking lot, and since this will generate more tax revenue, you now MUST sell it or we'll just take it for free....

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 02:00 PM (POpqt)

Elect conservative county sheriffs and have them toss those fuckers off your land for trespassing.

Posted by: tangonine at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (x3YFz)

250 #112 technically, Juggernaut IS a deus ex machina

Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 11, 2014 10:06 AM (qc1ke)

251 Barky today:

“But, what the Affordable Care Act does do, is it gives people flexibility… If I’m a woman who’s a county clerk and I’d really like to work with him on the farm, but we can’t afford health insurance on our own, so I’ve been working at the county clerk’s office for the last 10 years. Now, I’ve got the opportunity to no longer work in a different job and instead go work on that farm.”

There's no way in Hell you can convince me he's not on drugs.


Posted by: B at February 11, 2014 10:07 AM (VC56G)

252 I hereby certify that Obama is an a$$hole.

Posted by: Employer at February 11, 2014 10:08 AM (wAQA5)

253 Have you labeled every hazard on your property? Is that gas? I think I smell gas. Have you been to the original Disneyland recently? There are several signs near the entrance (and I think there's audio too) warning you there are TOXIC CHEMICALS labeled by the state of CA as DANGEROUS in the park. Disneyland. Nearly every person in the country has probably been there once or twice. And yet if you were to read the signs you'd get a heavy KEEP OUT vibe.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 11, 2014 10:08 AM (J79eW)

254 I too will volunteer to hold the kangaroo still for him if the weeping boner will act as if he were a member of the opposition party.

Posted by: SpongeBobSaget at February 11, 2014 10:08 AM (kxSZr)

255

Treasury officials said Monday that businesses will be told to "certify" that they are not shedding full-time workers simply to avoid the mandate. Officials said employers will be told to sign a "self-attestation" on their tax forms affirming this, under penalty of perjury.

 

 

Seriously, and just WTF do they plan to do   about it?   Huh?  

 

Hey, you want to get around shedding workers    "simply" to avoid the mandate?   Okay.   Say you're shedding workers because    you want to minimize your company's carbon footprint,   and skirting the Obammycare mandate is just a bonus.   Boom.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 11, 2014 10:09 AM (4df7R)

256

Its a contradiction , but I'm happy that none of the facist edicts have effected or been targeted at me directly and  disappointed that they have not  in that I don't have a direct cause to fire a  figurative  first shot.   

 

I definitely don't want to wish the bad things upon myself  but its aggravating sitting back and complaining on behalf of other people but having no standing to join the fight directly. 

 

Its  like  watching  your  favorite  sports  team  being  badly  coached.     

Posted by: polynikes at February 11, 2014 10:10 AM (m2CN7)

257 Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 02:05 PM (RJMhd)


I'd go a little further with that.  The statement was made that they weren't told "to stand down," they were told to "remain in place"  based on the possibility of a second, coordinated attack.  That's just an ass-covering semantic argument, IMO.

The other thing is the lack of a stand down order meme has only been applied to the guys in Tripoli...what about other forces, like the ones in Italy or elsewhere in AFRICOM?

Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 10:10 AM (L8r/r)

258 Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 02:05 PM (RJMhd) the difference between 'Stand Down'... And don't go to where the action is, but... protect the Airport which is not being attacked. is Moot... The key is they were told NOT to go.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 11, 2014 10:10 AM (84gbM)

259 Retweeted by National Review Daniel Mintz ‏@dmintz13 How about #BigLabor stages a protest of this exec. compensation? --> AmericaÂ’s Richest 2%: Union Presidents http://natl.re/1csBzz1 via @NRO

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:10 AM (ZPrif)

260 My above assertion is easy to test. Observe: #1 If the Church doesn't marry men to men, we'll tax them until they comply or close down. #2 If businesses don't hire ex-cons and women bums, they'll pay a higher tax. If it sounds like extortion...it is.

Posted by: Soothsayer at February 11, 2014 10:10 AM (nyPW+)

261 Just say Keith Arnold's rant on the previous post.

I'm straight-up vaginatarian.  I mean, if I were a dinosaur, I'd be a Lickalotapuss, but that thing was HAWT!

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (fwARV)

262 Have you been to the original Disneyland recently? There are several signs near the entrance (and I think there's audio too) warning you there are TOXIC CHEMICALS labeled by the state of CA as DANGEROUS in the park. Disneyland. Nearly every person in the country has probably been there once or twice. And yet if you were to read the signs you'd get a heavy KEEP OUT vibe. Posted by: bonhomme Hate to break the news to you, but nearly every business and every public building in the state has those signs. Some dumb-ass law was passed several years ago that was supposed to identify toxic waste sites, but it turned out to apply to nearly every location in the entire state that contains any chemicals of any kind. Random annoying bureaucracy burdens, as usual for CA.

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (+cx5n)

263 I think you overestimated your timeline by a factor of ten or so.

Nope.

All the Apocalypse Fantasies in the world won't change the fact that even the Socialist Left depend on keeping the Big Money types happy.

Change- for better or worse- will be gradual.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (SY2Kh)

264
I don't understand any of this, but can't states sue Holder (whom I assume is in charge of the legal blowback) on behalf of their business owners?
 Posted by: Seems legit at February 11, 2014 02:06 PM

NO ONE HAS STANDING!!!  YOU'D THINK YOU GOT THIS BY NOW.

Posted by: SCOTUS at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (n0DEs)

265

A supposed senator, Cantwell, just publicly said she'll use her taxing powers to threaten the NFL with changing the name of the Redskins.

 

Once upon a time, such a person would have their mail forwarded to the nearest guillotine.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (zF6Iw)

266 Soon it will be illegal to make a profit, you capitalistic pig and running dog!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (t3UFN)

267 It's footnote 13 page 5 of the pdf. US Senate Select Committee Intelligence review of the terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12,2012 together with additional views January 15, 2014

Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 10:11 AM (RJMhd)

268 250 #112 technically, Juggernaut IS a deus ex machina
Posted by: richard mcenroe at February 11, 2014 02:06 PM (qc1ke)
Do you mean douche machine?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 11, 2014 10:12 AM (reoHU)

269 We are a banana republic without bananas. I want my bananas.

Posted by: Beagle at February 11, 2014 10:12 AM (sOtz/)

270 @108  "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." GREGORY v. HELVERING, 293 U.S. 465 (1935)

And I thought the Supremes decreed that, at least the individual mandate, was supported by the Taxation power.  So is not these particular mandates just another tax being avoided?

Posted by: flounder at February 11, 2014 10:12 AM (Kkt/i)

271 269 We are a banana republic without bananas. I want my bananas. Posted by: Beagle Have you paid the banana tax yet, capitalist?

Posted by: zombie at February 11, 2014 10:13 AM (+cx5n)

272 Because I've read a ton about the founding of this country and right now, King George seems like a punter compared to Barry.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 01:40 PM (7ObY1)

We went to war with the greatest military force on earth over 2% taxation.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 11, 2014 10:13 AM (fwARV)

273 Just tell them you aren't firing them you are just giving them more freedom.

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2014 10:14 AM (g1DWB)

274

What's the penalty for failing to so "certify"?

 

 

Posted by: LASue at February 11, 2014 10:14 AM (pWeX5)

275 "Don't go" is close enough to "stand down" to be the same fucking thing.

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 10:14 AM (MNq6o)

276 Hate to break the news to you, but nearly every business and every public building in the state has those signs. HA! Those gov't officials, saving us heroically daily.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 11, 2014 10:14 AM (J79eW)

277 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.
Posted by Gabriel Malor

I want to roll around in this. It's like liquid stupid.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 10:14 AM (cxs6V)

278 What shouldn't be shocking is how little attention the media is paying to it. The Star Tribune or Red Star as we call it here in MN has the story buried in the health section of the paper and nary a mention of it on it's front page anywhere.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (/o+xv)

279 >>Will the GOP do anything? Boehner said he was "closely monitoring" the situation, didn't he? Will this provoke them into doing something? Posted by: bonhomme The only thing he monitors closely is how many cigs are left in the pack and how many fingers of Johnny Walker are left in the bottle.

Posted by: Aviator at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (jSUU1)

280 The Democrats do not have to defend this because the press will ignore it or spin it to the Democrats advantage.

And then a couple of months down the line Gabe will come here and tell us how the spin has convinced him he was wrong.  It is just like the sun rising.  The same process repeats over and over again, and each new outrage prepares us for the next step towards the gulags.


Posted by: Thatch at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (qYvEa)

281 All the Apocalypse Fantasies in the world won't change the fact that even the Socialist Left depend on keeping the Big Money types happy.

Change- for better or worse- will be gradual.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 02:11 PM
=====
See:  Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and every other banana republic. 

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (JBggj)

282 "Those evil plutocrats are only interested in buying a new Maserati or new 10,000 sq ft mansion"

I just wanted a pinky ring!

Posted by: dfbaskwill at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (zllbf)

283 Now, I’ve got the opportunity to no longer work in a different job and instead go work on that farm.”

And by farm he means govt work farm, serf.

Posted by: Govt ReEd Camp Commander at February 11, 2014 10:15 AM (n0DEs)

284 >>Hey, you want to get around shedding workers "simply" to avoid the mandate? Okay. Say you're shedding workers because you want to minimize your company's carbon footprint, and skirting the Obammycare mandate is just a bonus. Boom.

Honestly, I think this will just be used to harass certain businesses, just like what the IRS has been doing.

So Subway will not get a second look (because they're partnering with Michelle's Let's Move), but Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby will be scrutinized, and asked to provide additional paperwork, and then asked to meet with DOJ (or whoever will be enforcing this), and then maybe threatened with fines or investigations by the EEOC, HHS, IRS, etc., .....and at some point they'll make their demand which, if met, will make all of this pesky scrutiny go away.

Posted by: Lizzy at February 11, 2014 10:16 AM (POpqt)

285 Change- for better or worse- will be gradual.

You are a fool with no understanding of the implications of mathematics. Whatever event ends DC's ability to borrow also ends most of what they do. That could be today or a month from now, but it won't be ten or more years from now.

Posted by: Methos at February 11, 2014 10:16 AM (hO9ad)

286

Unless there is a prohibition on layoffs based on obamacare, tell the feds to urinate up a rope, then file suit.

 

Posted by: ATTILA727 at February 11, 2014 10:16 AM (J+cfY)

287 What about all of the companies that have already publicly stated that they are switching employees to part time? Or laying them off because of this fucking law

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at February 11, 2014 10:18 AM (R8hU8)

288 Posted by: Beagle at February 11, 2014 02:12 PM (sOtz/) I'd be willing to skip the bananas if I could just have the consistently warm weather.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 10:18 AM (PYAXX)

289 "A supposed senator, Cantwell, just publicly said she'll use her taxing powers to threaten the NFL"

----------
Note that Sen Cantwell does not possess 'taxing powers'

She sounds just like a British royal circa 1769 standing on American soil.

If you don't think this is all going to end with shots being fired, you need your head examined.

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 11, 2014 10:18 AM (3LaGb)

290 What's the penalty for failing to so "certify"?

Posted by: LASue



That's what I want to know.  Are they trying to intimidate businesses into saying layoffs are not due to Obamacare for the BS stats that will come out of those coerced "certifications"?  Is the business owner allowed to ask if it's a crime or if there are penalties or fines for laying off employees in order to avoid Obamacare mandates?

This is seriously effed up.

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 10:18 AM (MNq6o)

291 tell the feds to urinate up a rope, then file suit.

Posted by: ATTILA727

Go for it.

Posted by: IRS, EPA, EOC, FBI[/i] [/b] at February 11, 2014 10:19 AM (cxs6V)

292

285 ... Go easy on HollowHead. He's still struggling with the whole "GOP not in Opposition" thing.

 

Remember when YOU found out the truth about Santa Claus ? It's like that.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 10:19 AM (CSqCa)

293 "The Socialist Experiment will collapse the moment it hits the experimenters." Party Members are exempt comrade. Before you say it's unfair, let me remind you that government officials, teachers, and the like are working for the good of the poor, downtrodden, and the children... unlike those evil capitalists. If you object, it's because you are a racist and hate children. Oh... did I neglect to mention the new penalties for racism and child abuse?

Posted by: Damiano at February 11, 2014 10:19 AM (j0wOO)

294 258 Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 02:05 PM (RJMhd) the difference between 'Stand Down'... And don't go to where the action is, but... protect the Airport which is not being attacked. is Moot... The key is they were told NOT to go. Posted by: Romeo13 at February 11, 2014 02:10 PM (84gbM) ******* Well I wish more people would go to the original source materials and read for themselves. Of course the media is reporting that it never happened--the stand down order--and that the Senate Intel Committee found that.. To me the immediate CIA emails said there was a stand down order of some sort--and the bloody a Memorandum for The Record prepared by the Deputy Chief of Base --could be the typical CYA. You have two sources of information in conflict with each other. Of course the majority of Dems would drive that point down to the footnotes--I'm not convinced that the stand down order has been therefore--"disproven". The media is lazy--probably didn't read the footnotes and in effect doing a CYA of their own because they decided not to report obn Benghazi giving themselves the weak excuse of-- "timing". Didn't want to effect Obama's re-elections negatively--so now they are motivated to lean towards absolving themselves--they are complicate.

Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (RJMhd)

295

"Dear IRS,

 

Since I was not allowed    to reduce my workforce    due to the oppressive financial burdens placed on my business by the    requirements of the Affordable Care Act,   I have instead been forced to shutter my business entirely.   I will be directing my former employees to the IRS    for a   detailed    explanation of why they're now out of work.    They will be expecting flowcharts, Powerpoint presentations, and   a detailed, one on one conversation with someone who makes at least $75,000/year    (before benefits)     in your administrative offices.  

 

Sincerely,

 

Business Owner"

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (4df7R)

296 All you need is conservative business owners to state that they absolutely ARE shedding workers as a result of Obamacare and see what the Treasury Dept does with that.  Any sort of enforcement would instantly be struck down, even by a liberal court.

My guess is though, they'll be more subversive about enforcement, ie they'll just try to audit the shit out of you if you don't play ball.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (O/mny)

297 You are a fool with no understanding of the implications of mathematics. Whatever event ends DC's ability to borrow also ends most of what they do. That could be today or a month from now, but it won't be ten or more years from now.

I find your Apocalypse Fantasy intriguing and wish to see the script.  Does it have zombies?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (SY2Kh)

298 Obamacare for employees - Removing job lock Obamacare for employers - Mandating job lock

Posted by: JackStraw at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (g1DWB)

299 Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. -18 USC 2383 The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, it's time to impeach Barack Obama for rebelling against its authority

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (5xmd7)

300 tell the feds to urinate up a rope, then file suit. Posted by: ATTILA727 Ya know how much money the Feds have to crush you in court with fees and filings? Well let me rephrase that: Ya know how much of our money the Feds have?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 10:20 AM (t3UFN)

301 I knew something like this would happen when the Soviet Union collapsed and my professors learned nothing from it. If anything they were mad at the Russians for throwing in the towel. As Breitbart warned us repeatedly, politics is downstream of culture.

Posted by: Beagle at February 11, 2014 10:21 AM (sOtz/)

302

>>"Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them."

 

They won't have to. Because Republicans won't make them and the media won't talk about it. So who will even know except those businesses? And what do those businesses matter next to the 20 million illegals who'll soon be voting democrat?

Posted by: rrpjr at February 11, 2014 10:21 AM (s/yC1)

303 Shouldn't Presidents Day really just be President Obama Day, to honor President Obama only? It's the least we can do to honor the majesty of His Historicalness. Honoring a bunch of racist old slaveholders does not preserve the dignity of President Obama. If we don't change the name to President Obama's Day, aren't we really just a bunch of raaaaacicts?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 10:21 AM (7ObY1)

304 Comrade District Leader, I don't know why State run strip club is not make money. We import Western liquor. We make nice inside decoration. And all strippers are loyal Party members at least forty years!

Posted by: Gulag Archie at February 11, 2014 10:22 AM (HEo6y)

305 At least Justified is back tonight.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 11, 2014 10:23 AM (NRYdU)

306
I laid off all of those people as a consequence of the bad economics due to obamacare costs but obamacare wasn't the reason.

Signed,
Me

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 11, 2014 10:23 AM (n0DEs)

307 See: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and every other banana republic.

The notion that we're facing an imminent armed Leftist revolution is delusional.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 10:23 AM (SY2Kh)

308

Because I've read a ton about the founding of this country and right now, King George seems like a punter compared to Barry.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 11, 2014 01:40 PM (7ObY1)

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

Political correctness has done what it was supposed to do.  The populace has been cowed.  No one wants to offend anyone.  No one wants to have a negative label.  No one wants to fight, because that's bullying.

 

As long as the government lets the American people have just enough to stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, some food on the table, and a quasi feeling of security, their will be no uprisings.

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2014 10:23 AM (kPiYr)

309 297 All you need is conservative business owners to state that they absolutely ARE shedding workers as a result of Obamacare and see what the Treasury Dept does with that. Any sort of enforcement would instantly be struck down, even by a liberal court.

My guess is though, they'll be more subversive about enforcement, ie they'll just try to audit the shit out of you if you don't play ball.

Posted by: McAdams at February 11, 2014 02:20 PM (O/mny)

 

Don't forget that Alinskyite thug Tom Perez is now running the Labor Department.  If you refuse the attestation I'll bet 100% the IRS sends your name right over to Perez for a little OSHA/Wage&Hour/ERISA enforcement.  And the IRS will go over 10 years of your payroll tax submissions and audit you on that. 

Posted by: rockmom at February 11, 2014 10:23 AM (aBlZ1)

310 257 Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 02:05 PM (RJMhd) I'd go a little further with that. The statement was made that they weren't told "to stand down," they were told to "remain in place" based on the possibility of a second, coordinated attack. That's just an ass-covering semantic argument, IMO. Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 02:10 PM (L8r/r) oh ya--it really could be as simple as that. When you have the wife of the President who will be famous for ruminating about-- "what the meaning of is--is." The other thing is the lack of a stand down order meme has only been applied to the guys in Tripoli...what about other forces, like the ones in Italy or elsewhere in AFRICOM? Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 02:10 PM (L8r/r) Good damn point--our public will just think of it as a broad sweeping statement and apply it to the whole story and timeline. Hell they never scrambled the FEST --which even I get confused with FAST. Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 02:10 PM (L8r/r)

Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 10:24 AM (RJMhd)

311

79Directive 10-289


I think we're getting close to Order 66.

 

 

 

Both of these can be overridden by Rule .308

Posted by: Drill_Thrawl at February 11, 2014 10:24 AM (/AHDz)

312 How many businesses, conservative or otherwise, have fought the other illegal Obama regs? Seems like it's mainly ones whose Christian beliefs are so strong that they compel them not to compy. Vast majority of conservative business owners have complied with everything Obama has told them to do. Probably with the logic that it's bad for business to become a target of the Feds. I can't blame them.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:24 AM (ZPrif)

313

Heard the top of the  hour "news" broadcast... our dear leader is assuring people around the  world that they have nothing to fear from American Intelligence. 

 

We're going to guarantee the dignity and respect that ALL nations are entitled to, and he says this is the first time in history anyone has done this...

 

My take on it is that he's a bit jealous at  the Missouri footballer for  taking  some of the attention  away from himself.  Unprecedented... there can be only one. 

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (TOk1P)

314 "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
The law doesn't permit this! Apparently.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (zfY+H)

315 Did I just see Ace darting into the shadows?

Posted by: joncelli at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (RD7QR)

316 As long as the government lets the American people have just enough to stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, some food on the table, and a quasi feeling of security, their will be no uprisings. Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2014 02:23 PM (kPiYr) And 'Bama Pho's. And free internet. (As your service provider, the FCC retains the right to block certain websites that it deems objectionable)

Posted by: Damiano at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (j0wOO)

317 Yeah, I think we are headed the way of the UK and France, not Venezuela. Which does imply a slower decline.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (ZPrif)

318 This shit is making me miss Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 10:26 AM (MNq6o)

319 I dare you!

Posted by: Robert Conrad at February 11, 2014 10:27 AM (p/izY)

320

Posted by: tasker at February 11, 2014 02:24 PM (RJMhd)

 

I said it before,  but I don't care if they knew they would be 24 hours late to the party,  they should have had a significant military  dropped   into  that quadrant so much so that the locals would have thought  WWIII was about to begin. 

Posted by: polynikes at February 11, 2014 10:27 AM (m2CN7)

321 I've actually been thinking about what would happen that would push us past the breaking point. The weak spot is the States, not the Feds. The Feds can just keep printing money forever. Sure, inflation will screw everyone over, but they can just keep changing what the definition of "poverty" is to adjust for that. The Cities can claim bankruptcy protection. When a city like Detroit goes under it's messy, but we can absorb a large number of Detroits, quite frankly. However, the moment one of the LOTB is faced with insolvency and no hope of survival- the organic fertilizer will hit the rotary ventilator in a hurry. Because then you have all the people dependent upon State services (unemployment, Medicaid, etc.) who have no where to turn. Then what happens? Either the Feds "let" a State go insolvent- which would have catastrophic consequences for the economy- or they step in to bail out a whole State- and then what does *that* look like? THAT is the point when fiscally sane states will say "NO." Once that happens, governments start falling like dominoes. It will be very, very bad.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 10:27 AM (PYAXX)

322 So a new class of Hate Speech is created: Entrepreneurs and businessmen now cannot speak out against O Care for having to shed workers, as the very argument would be self incriminating. Much like one cannot now argue for a rethink of the Immigration Act of 1965 without committing Hate. Slowly but surely dissent is being outlawed.

Posted by: NYC Parent at February 11, 2014 10:27 AM (HEo6y)

323 Today is about the.....100th? time since Jan 2009 I've sat here in complete disbelief that this JEF is America's President.

It truly is surreal.

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 11, 2014 10:28 AM (3LaGb)

324

307 -

 

Probably less delusional than your dream of 60 Senate seats and the White House in '16. 

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2014 10:28 AM (TOk1P)

325

significant militarydropped  = significant military force dropped

 

have I mention I despise this pixy setup. 

Posted by: polynikes at February 11, 2014 10:28 AM (m2CN7)

326 our dear leader is assuring people around the world that they have nothing to fear from American Intelligence. .....................Coming from Obama I'd say he's just about right.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 11, 2014 10:28 AM (/o+xv)

327 I read the "John Boehner Gives Up" article on WaPo.

I know, I know: You're thinking he surrendered again.

Nope.

He gave up on giving the Dems what they want.

Least, that's how I've read it.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 11, 2014 10:28 AM (VjL9S)

328

This is essentially the regulation of political speech, by way of offering a "tax" break to those companies willing to speak a particular way and denying the break to others unwilling. 

 

Obviously its illegal but its also abhorrent. Disgusting even.

Posted by: MTF at February 11, 2014 10:29 AM (B5y+v)

329 I find your Apocalypse Fantasy intriguing and wish to see the script. Does it have zombies?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 02:20 PM (SY2Kh)


Please calculate for us what the federal deficit and debt will be in the 20-30 years out time frame and explain the mechanism by which you think it is likely to come to pass.


If you can't plausibly do so, then a rational person must conclude something else is going to happen.

Posted by: Methos at February 11, 2014 10:29 AM (hO9ad)

330

315 -

 

Nah, I think that was an Audi Quattro. 

Posted by: BurtTC at February 11, 2014 10:29 AM (TOk1P)

331 At this point I think they are just trying to get the GOP congress to start impeachment proceedings in order to turn the midterms in their favor.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 11, 2014 10:29 AM (chqG9)

332 The hard-core leftists I know want to do away with the states. They want a unified federal govt to run everything -- states, cities, everything.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:29 AM (ZPrif)

333 "I ordered three more standard capacity magazines today." Pffft! Amateur... We just ordered enough mags to fill a C130 and enough ammo to fill 3 of them.

Posted by: US Postal Service at February 11, 2014 10:30 AM (j0wOO)

334 At this point I think they are just trying to get the GOP congress to start impeachment proceedings in order to turn the midterms in their favor. Posted by: Serious Cat at February 11, 2014 02:29 PM (chqG9) To Impeach Bohner? Where do I sign

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 11, 2014 10:31 AM (t3UFN)

335 One question is whether Europe's relatively slow descent was enabled by the US propping them up. If so, then when America tries the same slow descent that could mean rapid descent for all of us.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 10:31 AM (ZPrif)

336 The hard-core leftists I know want to do away with the states. They want a unified federal govt to run everything -- states, cities, everything.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 11, 2014 02:29 PM (ZPrif)

Yup.  Same here. 

No Ohio, no Georgia, just America.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 11, 2014 10:32 AM (fwARV)

337 Ace has been forced to fire himself because of a little-known sub-paragraph in Obamacare, but he has appeal rights.

Posted by: Banjo at February 11, 2014 10:32 AM (lMtGt)

338 OT. I hate cruising news sites only to see the results from the Olympic events I WAS going to watch tonight. If I know the outcome I am not going to watch. Thanks guys. Ugggh.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 11, 2014 10:33 AM (/o+xv)

339 I still don't get this. If it's illegal to shed full-time workers to avoid the mandate, why are local governments openly doing exactly that?

Posted by: girldog at February 11, 2014 10:33 AM (05V+v)

340 As long as the government lets the American people have just enough to stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer, some food on the table, and a quasi feeling of security, their will be no uprisings.

Yes, the lack of character among our populace is lamentable. Stilll, there are a lot of big ifs in there.

Posted by: Methos at February 11, 2014 10:34 AM (hO9ad)

341 but he has appeal rights. Posted by: Banjo


An executive order will put a stop to that.  If the whim so inclines...

Posted by: Dang at February 11, 2014 10:34 AM (MNq6o)

342 336 The hard-core leftists I know want to do away with the states. They want a unified federal govt to run everything -- states, cities, everything.

***

I bet it comes with a Five Year Plan, right?

Posted by: B at February 11, 2014 10:34 AM (VC56G)

343 The pro forma response to this "requirement" should be "GFY".

Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars™ [/i] [/b] [/s] at February 11, 2014 10:34 AM (HsTG8)

344 Wait, so now companies have to "certify" that they are not indeed "freeing" these poor unfortunate souls from those jobs that nobody wants to do?  I thought funemployment was a feature of this great and wonderful govt program, why should a company have to certify that they are not taking part of this great awakening?

Posted by: Huffington Post at February 11, 2014 10:35 AM (obXkJ)

345 Why no, I didn't reduce my workforce due to Ocare. Those evil bankers made me do it by requiring my biz to hit certain ratios so I could keep my loan. Will that fly?

Posted by: olddog in mo at February 11, 2014 10:37 AM (HnHZq)

346 Entrepreneurs and businessmen now cannot speak out against O Care for having to shed workers, as the very argument would be self incriminating.

Much like one cannot now argue for a rethink of the Immigration Act of 1965 without committing Hate.

Slowly but surely dissent is being outlawed.

Posted by: NYC Parent at February 11, 2014 02:27 PM (HEo6y)

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

We talk of the abridgement of the 2d Amendment almost to a fault.  And as we focus on that, the other basic "rights" amendments are being whittled away with almost no pushback.   It's sort of a  revolving squirrel tactic.

Posted by: Soona at February 11, 2014 10:37 AM (kPiYr)

347 Pffft! Amateur...

We just ordered enough mags to fill a C130 and enough ammo to fill 3 of them.

Posted by: US Postal Service at February 11, 2014 02:30 PM (j0wOO)


That's right out of the plotline from "A. American's" Going Home, Surviving Home, and Escaping Home series, in which DHS is rolling around with the postal carriers delivering "report to the camp" notices.

Posted by: Country Singer at February 11, 2014 10:37 AM (L8r/r)

348 Normalcy Bias, meet HollowHead. HollowHead, Normalcy Bias.

Posted by: ScoggDog at February 11, 2014 10:37 AM (CSqCa)

349 What's your problem? We're moving forward to a Star Trek economic model! Everyone likes Star Trek, right?

Posted by: Senior Obama Advisor at February 11, 2014 10:38 AM (j0wOO)

350 344 Wait, so now companies have to "certify" that they are not indeed "freeing" these poor unfortunate souls from those jobs that nobody wants to do? I thought funemployment was a feature of this great and wonderful govt program, why should a company have to certify that they are not taking part of this great awakening?
***

Because Cognitive Dissonance fills up 9/10ths of the space in the head of a Leftist...

Posted by: B at February 11, 2014 10:39 AM (VC56G)

351 @347 No fictional plot line needed. This actually happened last week. Really. Now witness the power of this fully armed Postal Service! (and Department of Education, and FCC, ...)

Posted by: Damiano at February 11, 2014 10:40 AM (j0wOO)

352 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 11, 2014 02:27 PM (PYAXX) Oh Hai Illinois! (I take refuge in the fact that the people with the guns in Southern IL on are more or less on our side.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 11, 2014 10:41 AM (GaqMa)

353 349 What's your problem? We're moving forward to a Star Trek economic model! Everyone likes Star Trek, right?Posted by: Senior Obama Advisor at February 11, 2014 02:38 PM (j0wOO)
I'll just head over to the replicator and order my cup of Earl Grey, hot.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 11, 2014 10:41 AM (reoHU)

354 New proposal from Bureau of Obamanomics: Every business with over 20 workers will be required to have a government official stationed in the office to ensure that you make no fast moves.

Posted by: Comrade Roberto Luongo at February 11, 2014 10:41 AM (wsLRF)

355 Things are intensifying a bit, aren't they?  Must be a tsunami wave election coming up.  A non-violent one, I hope.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 10:42 AM (JBggj)

356 Things are intensifying a bit, aren't they? Must be a tsunami wave election coming up. A non-violent one, I hope.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 02:42 PM (JBggj)

There are some among us who believe this may be our last chance at a non-violent anything.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 11, 2014 10:43 AM (fwARV)

357

WTF? It is perfectly legal to make business decisions, including hiring and firing decisions of at-will employees, based on rational calculations of the cost of complying with federal law. It literally happens every day, for instance, when a company decides not to open a new factory to manufacture a new product because the cost of complying with federal EPA rules is too high. But now employers will have to "certify" that they are not firing employees to stay under the 50 (or is it 100?) employee threshold where the employer mandate under Obamacare kicks in. They can fire employees, but they just can't think the wrong thoughts while firing them.

Essentially, what this does is that every employer who makes that rational (and, repeat, legal) decision to fire employees (or to decide not to hire new employees) because of the Obamacare mandate is now subject to a perjury trap. The federal government could get a judge to issue a warrant based on the probable cause that they lied on their federal tax forms, and come in to a company and begin searching its email records and files for any evidence that they had thought the unthinkable thought.... that the Obamacare mandate would not be affordable for the company.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at February 11, 2014 10:44 AM (qHCyt)

358 (I take refuge in the fact that the people with the guns in Southern IL on are more or less on our side.) Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 11, 2014 02:41 PM Been to Cairo lately?

Posted by: olddog in mo at February 11, 2014 10:45 AM (HnHZq)

359 Media organizations often have opinions approved by management.  They are called "editorials".  Be a shame if one of those big media companies had to fire somebody.

Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 10:48 AM (JBggj)

360 it's like when jerry tried to return his jacket out of spite. Then he says well I just don't like it. "No, you already said spite."

Posted by: someone at February 11, 2014 10:53 AM (8QxPj)

361 If I know the outcome I am not going to watch. Thanks guys. Ugggh.

You must be saving a ton on "pron."

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 11, 2014 10:54 AM (xq1UY)

362 Next EO: Loyalty Oaths

Posted by: DamnCat at February 11, 2014 10:55 AM (TBN/J)

363 No Ohio, no Georgia, just America. Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 11, 2014 02:32 PM (fwARV) Imagine no Ohio It's easy if you can No Cincinnati or Dayton The 500 in the can Imagine all the U.S. As one grey mass of plebes You-u-u-u-u May not want to be cattle Well too bad, get to work You say you didn't vote for this But the U.S. elected a commie jerk

Posted by: Ghost of John Lennon at February 11, 2014 10:56 AM (0cMkb)

364 Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them.
----------

Oh, give me a break - to "defend" it there has to be an actual attack upon it, an attack that can actually threaten it. The difference between name calling and a punch.  I see a lot of ball-less wonders bitching about this, but I don't see any actual action taken to stop it. 

Yes, I'm looking squarely at YOU, Republicans and their fellators.

So until these Dem line steppers are "checked" in their lawlessness, there is no reason for them to defend shit. Or to fear anything.

My suggestion - non-compliance - "Hey Barry, you amend whateva you gotta to "delay enforcement", but we're gonna "delay compliance" with the law on our end, until it's fiscally feasible to comply.  Which is never.  Nice talkin' with ya!"

Sure, some will face fine and jail time, but they can't fine/imprison everyone. 

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 11, 2014 10:57 AM (i6shs)

365 "Let the Democrats try and defend this; I dare them."

Why would they bother? It's not as if the "opposition" will require them to do.

Posted by: A message at February 11, 2014 10:59 AM (fsHdl)

366
    You're talking about a gov't entity dictating how a private business is to be run.

    Can't do that.

    Correct answer is fynq.

    This won't stand---UNLESS WE ALLOW IT TO.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2014 11:00 AM (SAMxH)

367

"108 Long ago there was a court case where it was ruled that you are allowed to structure your financial affairs in order to reduce your taxes i.e. non-fraudulent tax avoidance is legal."

Yep, that's tax law 101: tax *avoidance*, as opposed to tax evasion, is perfectly legal, tax avoidance meaning arranging your affairs in such a way as to minimize your tax.     Every tax runs into the obstacle of  normal, human tax avoidance, and in a state ruled by laws not men, the taxmen can sputter and fume about tax avoidance but can't do anything about it.   Until now, under a lawless regime.

Posted by: Bud Norton at February 11, 2014 11:01 AM (6cOMd)

368 It has been a general principle of American and common law that people are permitted to organize their affairs in any lawful way, to avoid tax consequences. A major reason for having a complicated tax code is create incentives in order to drive behavior. King Obama has decreed that people should not act according to self-interest. They should act according to his wishes. We are no longer given a choice. We must "certify" that we are doing what King Obama wants, or else . . . what? IRS audits? Harassment? He will release the names of businesses that refuse to sign, so his liberal media flying monkeys can hound us? We have to certify before the state that we give up our right to make economic decisions to minimize tax liability? This is insanity.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 11, 2014 11:02 AM (VMODY)

369 @363 "The 500 in the can" ?

Really, dude. Not the Grand American or Camp Perry or even the Soap Box Derby? You had to go into Indiana to make your scansion?

Turn in your doggerel card. You'll never write greeting cards again.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 11, 2014 11:03 AM (xq1UY)

370 Please calculate for us what the federal deficit and debt will be in the 20-30 years out time frame and explain the mechanism by which you think it is likely to come to pass.
If you can't plausibly do so, then a rational person must conclude something else is going to happen.

Or how about you just type "projected US debt" into your Internet Machine, sport?  I have.

Shy of major catastrophe or war, there's virtually no chance of any major fiscal collapse in the next 5-10 years.  Such are the advantages of the ability to manage our own currency.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 11:04 AM (SY2Kh)

371
    Funny, I'd have thought Obamacare, unfolding as I write, would certainly qualify as a major fiscal collapse.

Posted by: irongrampa at February 11, 2014 11:08 AM (SAMxH)

372
All your businesses are belong to us!

Posted by: King Barry I at February 11, 2014 11:11 AM (VrNoa)

373 18 And if they are shedding workers to avoid the mandate?!?!?!? What the fuck? Is it a crime to run a business? ******************* No, it's only a crime to run a business competently. Dims aren't big on competence. Hence, Obama.

Posted by: Trivial Pursuer at February 11, 2014 11:11 AM (/sohm)

374
Does anyone have a source for this in addition to the Fox News report?  Something from Treasury or the White House?

(Trust, but verify)

Posted by: Powderhouse Rules at February 11, 2014 11:30 AM (Xv7f/)

375 "Shy of major catastrophe or war, there's virtually no chance of any major fiscal collapse in the next 5-10 years. Such are the advantages of the ability to manage our own currency. Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 11, 2014 03:04 PM (SY2Kh) " Federal minimum wage in 2006 was $5.15. 6 years later it's $7.25 and we're told by Democrats it ought to be $10.10 by 2015. How is that managing our currency?

Posted by: Chris Balsz at February 11, 2014 11:35 AM (5xmd7)

376 @ 368 "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted." (SOTUS)

Posted by: obladioblada at February 11, 2014 11:38 AM (w6/EI)

377 What we need is a President whose first official acts will be to fire every single person at IRS & EPA.  Right down to the housekeeping crews. 

Hey, Obama did what he wanted, so screw the civil service.  They are all out the door.  Offer them a one-time severance payment of 6 months pay right now if they waive all rights to sue.  If they sue instead, be sure they know we will drag it out forever and refuse to pay any judgments.

A flat tax for individuals and businesses and elimination of all deductions will eliminate the need for most of the IRS workers.  The few we need can be drawn from the pool of those who never worked at IRS, whose family never worked there, and who swear they are not Democrats.

Hey, the Thought Police work both sides of the street, baby!

Posted by: Adjoran at February 11, 2014 11:53 AM (QIQ6j)

378 Today my employer (fewer than 20 employees) announced that they are ending our group policy and if we buy insurance through the exchange, they will pay us a subsidy to make us whole with respect to our current employee contribution after the Obamacare subsidy. They calculate that they will save significantly by having us buy individual "silver" policies and having the taxpayers cover a portion of the premium.

Posted by: S2 at February 11, 2014 12:18 PM (3RHCq)

379 No one should sign this piece of crap. If necessary, fill the courts with challenges. Enough of this arbitrary left wing government.

Posted by: rplat at February 11, 2014 12:25 PM (UAHTK)

380 Every day it's something else egregious, arbitrary, and insulting.  And not one  Republican marshalls an effective defense.

They are just giving the country away to this petulant freak.  Cowards.

Posted by: gracepmc at February 11, 2014 12:40 PM (rznx3)

381

Diabolical.

 

The ACA is a diabolical law designed to control our lives.

This latest Tweak is a diabolical attempt to control...and hide...the damage that it is doing.

Posted by: wheatie at February 11, 2014 12:45 PM (eCZwh)

382 Posted by: mrp at February 11, 2014 01:54 PM (JBggj)---- It is  never-ending series of crimes with this bunch in DC.

Posted by: Baldy at February 11, 2014 12:58 PM (2bql3)

383 So, businesses are not allowed to make decisions based on business regulations.... Hello Comrade! I hope they all tell Barky to piss off.

Posted by: Rob in Katy at February 11, 2014 01:02 PM (gdGJ1)

384 OT, since I won't be awake for the ONT -- I have a few new posts up on my blog.  I have to approve new commenters, so please use your AOSHQ nics somewhere in there, and you'll be in, unless I recognize a spammer or troll.

Posted by: Empire1 at February 11, 2014 01:02 PM (pwBnD)

385
Leave your answer on the Obamacare website where the govt is sure not to lose it.

Posted by: Passive-Agressive Tap-Dancer at February 11, 2014 01:18 PM (UxKxm)

386

"339 I still don't get this. If it's illegal to shed full-time workers to avoid the mandate, why are local governments openly doing exactly that?  "

 

 

It isn't illegal, just something that obowel pulled from his ass. The feds have no legal authority to mandate the size of an employers workforce.

Posted by: ATTILA727 at February 11, 2014 01:35 PM (J+cfY)

387 Prediction: Democrats will defend it with "Shut up" and no one will do anything about it, and the GOP will join in saying "Shut up" if they try to do anything about it.

Posted by: Cackfinger at February 11, 2014 08:00 PM (OsCtd)

388 Of course they'll only have to defend it if anyone asks them...and no one will.

Posted by: Max Waters at February 11, 2014 08:20 PM (Nkxwu)

389 What if they refuse to sign this attestation?

Posted by: james at February 11, 2014 09:34 PM (1PqiV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
280kb generated in CPU 0.104, elapsed 0.3993 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3166 seconds, 517 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 21487
  • Files: 240
  • Bytes: 559.5M
  • CPU Time: 26:42
  • Queries: 632591

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0