Will Obamacare create the new 29hr work week?

[bshole]

Bob,

Ok, when Bush got into office my 401k was around 90K, after 8 years of contributions during his presidency it went up to 195K before imploding and returning to 95K. 8 years of his presidency and I got net negative rate of return on my investments.

5 years of Obama and my 401K is now at 375K. It doesn't take a genius to figure which presidency did more for my bottom line.

My fortunes mirror MOST of America's. Look at the DJIA for the last 20 years. Bush was a total fail for investors. Obama has been a boon for all Americans with a 401k. If we had 20 years of Obama like market growth, we all could retire as millioinaires.

Edit for complete honesty..... my bottom was reached during the first year of Obama's presidency, you can see that by looking at the chart. Since then it has been an uninterrupted ride up. In addition, I am not completely sure of the 90K number at the beginning of Bush's presidency, I could have started much lower than that. I do know that my net negative yearly rate of return (for the entire life of the 401K) bottomed out at -7%. My yearly rate of return (for the entire life of my 401K) is now close to 7%, that is a massive jump.

Uno,
You are correct. Nuff said.

 

[xBiffx]

Ok, when Bush got into office my 401k was around 90K, after 8 years of contributions during his presidency it went up to 195K before imploding and returning to 90K. 8 years of his presidency and I got net negative rate of return on my investments.

5 years of Obama and my 401K is now at 375K. It doesn't take a genius to figure which presidency did more for my bottom line.

My fortunes mirror MOST of America's. Look at the DJIA for the last 20 years. Bush was a total fail for investors. Obama has been a boon for all Americans with a 401k. If we had 20 years of Obama like market growth, we all could retire as millioinaires.

You are a complete idiot for attributing this to who is president.

 

[bshole]

xBiffx,

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh who said a few months before the election....

How long does this country have if Obama wins? We're headed toward an economic collapse and we are the leader of the world. And when it happens to us, there are reverberations all over the world, it's not like some poll dunk little European country collapsing that goes to another poll dunk European country for a bailout. When we collapse, world-wide reverberation. How long is it going to take?
:
How long do we have, folks. I know people, who think 18 months before a real United States economic collapse.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/economic-...ic-collapse-if-obama-re-elected#ixzz2YfUOtYaw

This coming presidential election will determine whether the U.S. ends up in another Great Depression or pulls out of the economic slump. There are numerous signs indicating that the country is headed for economic Armageddon under Obama. Some analysts are predicting the crash could come as soon as next year. Obama is following the failed policies of President Herbert Hoover which led to the Great Depression.

http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...nsure_complete_us_economic_collapse/page/full




Why do you think I brought this up in the first place? I got sick to the puke point of conservative pundits telling me that Obama was going to destroy the economy. It is funny, if the economy was doing poorly, conservatives would blame it on Obama. Since it is doing better and better every day, conservatives say it has nothing to do with Obama. WHICH IS IT?



NOTHING BUT NET BABY!

 

[OutHouse]

My wifes payroll job got knocked down fron 35 hours to 29.5 hours on jan 1.

 

[xBiffx]

xBiffx,

Tell that to Rush Limbaugh who said a few months before the election....



Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/economic-...ic-collapse-if-obama-re-elected#ixzz2YfUOtYaw




http://townhall.com/columnists/rach...nsure_complete_us_economic_collapse/page/full




Why do you think I brought this up in the first place? I got sick to the puke point of conservative pundits telling me that Obama was going to destroy the economy. It is funny, if the economy was doing poorly, conservatives would blame it on Obama. Since it is doing better and better every day, conservatives say it has nothing to do with Obama. WHICH IS IT?



NOTHING BUT NET BABY!

I retract my previous statement.




You are a complete idiot.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are a complete idiot for attributing this to who is president.

This xover9000

Holy fuck I hope you are a troll for attributing stock numbers to presidency performance

1) Stock prices have nothing to do with the common wealth of the nation. Quite the opposite, actually.
2) Stock prices go up overtime naturally to accomidate the never-ending inflation of continuously printing money. Hence, bigger number != better everytime.
3) The overall suffering of the middle class is ridiculously gigantic compared to what it was under bush. What was previously middle class that was lost is back in the workforce - except it's in the lower class now. Congratulations on your seperation of wealth, don't you have some more Occupy Wallstreet parks to camp-out at while holding eachothers hands and 1 of you plays a banjo?

 

[Gunslinger08]

This is the problem with government regulations that have some arbitrary limit where a new cost kicks in for employers. A lot of companies who can save money by changing to be below that limit will do so.

 

[bshole]

Holy fuck I hope you are a troll for attributing stock numbers to presidency performance

1) Stock prices have nothing to do with the common wealth of the nation. Quite the opposite, actually.

So when the DJIA tripled under Ronald Reagan, it meant the economy was doing poorly? In any event it didn't matter because Ronald Reagan bore no responsibility for the DJIA tripling?

 

[yllus]

I think it's a little disingenuous to blame this on government. Government is never going to write absolutely perfect, cannot be worked around legislation. They will always have to apply a general rule.

 

[xBiffx]

So when the DJIA tripled under Ronald Reagan, it meant the economy was doing poorly?

No.

In any event it didn't matter because Ronald Reagan bore no responsibility for the DJIA tripling?

You got it.

Idiot.

 

[xBiffx]

I think it's a little disingenuous to blame this on government. Government is never going to write absolutely perfect, cannot be worked around legislation. They will always have to apply a general rule.

Perhaps. But this wouldn't be happening it it weren't for government actions. Seems the blame is appropriate.

 

[bshole]

It was Reagan’s supply side economic ideas — the policy of marginal rate tax cuts, a strong dollar, trade globalization (the Gipper started NAFTA with a U.S.-Canadian free trade agreement), deregulation of key industries like energy, financial services and transportation, and a re-armed military — all of which unleashed a great wave of entrepreneurial-technological innovation that transformed and restructured the economy, resulting in a long boom prosperity that continues to throw off economic benefits to this day.

The trend of the stock market, shown in the accompanying chart, provides compelling evidence that the real turning point of the U.S. economy was the early 1980s, not the early 1990s. From 1967-82, the 15 years before Reaganomics, the Dow-Jones industrial average suffered one of its blackest bear markets in history, falling 23 percent in nominal terms and nearly 70 percent per year in inflation adjusted real terms. Stagflationary anti-market Keynesian fine-tuning policies caused the wealth of American families to vanish right before their very eyes

Stupid conservatives at the Cato Institute tried to tell me that Reagan was responsible for the DJIAs explosive growth, guess they should have consulted our resident economics expert xBiff first....

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-reagan-economy-stupid

PS. It was NAFTA that was the catalyst for gutting our manufacturing industry. This was the genesis of offshoring and the demolition of the American middle class.

 

[xBiffx]

Stupid conservatives at the Cato Institute tried to tell me that Reagan was responsible for the DJIAs explosive growth, guess they should have consulted our resident economics expert xBiff first....

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-reagan-economy-stupid

Guess you should learn to read. Never said I was an expert. I just think its idiotic to attribute unemployment and the entire economy on who is president. There is a whole lot more to it than that.

Who gives a shit what Cato has to say? But I do find it funny you are using conservative talking points to backup your comment that Obama is to thank for your 401k boon.

Fucktard.

 

[boomerang]

 

[shady28]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/08/smallbusiness/obamacare-fatburger/index.html

Under the Affordable Care Act, companies with 50-plus full-time employees must start offering them health insurance or face stiff penalties.

Because a 30-hour work week counts as full-time under Obamacare, Fatburger fast-food restaurants had started cutting worker hours below that threshold, CEO Andy Wiederhorn said.


would the bottom line be increased for Fortune 500 companies to reduce all but the 49 most crucial employees (ie: CEO + top mgrs) to 29hrs week?

and since they're working 29hrs, their pay will also be reduced.

but since they are salaried, hope they still work 40+ hrs/week?

The direct answer to the question is no, it won't.

It will create a nation of people working 3 part time jobs at 80-90 hrs / wk.

With all things taken together, the NSA scandals, the IRS scandals, constant abuse of power, people more than willing to go along and make excuses and give up their constitutional rights -

Spells slavery.

And slaves don't get 29hr work weeks.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The vast majority of the people in this "group" voted for our Dear Leader, so they're getting what they asked for.

There will be major changes in the way corporations do business due to this. MANY more part-time employees and contractors rather than full-time people.

Obama did what he could to reform our dysfunctional health care system. (As he said, if he were starting from scratch, he would do things differently.)

The real problem is that employers have involvement in health care benefits to begin with. It doesn't matter how much the system is tinkered with because the system itself is fundamentally flawed. The solution is real socialized medicine which has been proven to be much more efficient and less expensive in every other first world nation that has implemented it.

United States:

• 17% of GDP and growing
• Tens of millions uninsured or under-insured
• Insured people living in terror of losing their jobs and health insurance
• Hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies each year, many of whom had insurance
• Businesses burdened by insurance concerns and costs.
• Wealthy insurance and hospital executives

Nations with Real Socialized Medicine:

• Much smaller percentage of GDP
• 100% coverage
• Zero medical bankruptcies
• Often more doctors per capita
• A more content populace
• Businesses not burdened by insurance concerns
• Fewer wealthy insurance and hospital executives (oh noes! Whatever will happen to the yacht industry?)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Question for Obamacare critics: What is your plan to fix our nation's health care problem? I'm a critic of Obamacare too, but at least I can propose a workable, tested, and proven alternative.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Second largest US employer today is a temp agency. That should tell you something about the situation we are in.

Aside from the problems that our current health care system creates, it doesn't help when millions of formerly middle class jobs, including jobs that require a college education, are sent overseas via foreign outsourcing, when Americans are displaced from college-education-requiring jobs by foreigners on work visas, and when tens of millions of poor immigrants (legal and illegal) are brought into the country to depress wages and displace working class and working poor Americans from their jobs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Yep. Obamacare originated as a proposal from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as a way to have private industry provided health care reform. It's no coincidence Mitt Romney put it into place first as governor. Obamacare is nothing but a Republican health care plan, but since anything Obama has to be treated like it's Satan's worst excrement, suddenly it's ~*socialism*~

Obama is basically a 1990s centrist Republican president in every way except 1) he's black and 2) he's listed as a Democrat. It's pretty funny how he keeps proposing 1990s Republican ideas which are suddenly SOCIALISM AAHHHHH like cap and trade and Obamacare. If he said water was good to drink we'd have a nation of dehydrated Republicans.

This.

Most Americans' brains shut down whenever the world "socialism" is mentioned. Socialism! Evil! Fear! Coincidentally, our nation has become a nation of morons and our free market dogmatism has resulted in the destruction of our economy, but most Americans will never figure it out.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This is what you idiots voted for. dont act surprised.

...and the alternative was...?

Don't get sick and if you do get sick, die quickly?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

To answer to OP, yes it will make a 29 hour work week the norm. But Nancy told us that Obamacare would free people up to follow their dreams. So everyone can dream of the lifestyle they would have had with full employment at 40 hours and without the burden of the cost of mandated healthcare under Obamacare.

As we've already heard from one of the Obamabots, if you don't like it, it's not the fault of Democrats so be sure to continue to vote them in.

Under your plan ("don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly and quietly"), would dying people without health insurance have time to dream of what it might be like if we had real socialized medicine?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

3) The overall suffering of the middle class is ridiculously gigantic compared to what it was under bush. What was previously middle class that was lost is back in the workforce - except it's in the lower class now.

This really has less to do with Obama and even Bush than it does with our nation's long-term economic policies over the past forty years. Global Labor Arbitrage is the primary culprit.

 

[ivwshane]

You're free to think differently, but the transition from full time to part time jobs under Obama doesn't appeal to me.

Neither does the fact that the number of Americans receiving food assistance has surpassed the number of full-time private sector workers in the U.S.

And when Only 47% Of Adults Have a Full-Time Job in Obama "Recovery", I don't see a lot of reason to party.

But if you want to celebrate, then party on...

Uno

Interesting...I see a massive downfall of fulltime work under Bush and a slow but skittish increase in full time employment under Obama.

In terms of food stamps and other assistance, what did you think would happen with the massive downfall of full time jobs that started under Bush? Did you think assistance would go down during a very slow recovery, one that I might remind you, that unlike all previous recoveries, is improving despite no growth in government employment.

 

[zanejohnson]

it's technology, we've really shined under Obama...

free health.. that should be a given... i'll pitch in.

 

[bshole]

WhipperSnapper,

Excellent posts. The cost of health care in the United States is far higher than any other nation.

Health care in the United States is double that of Canada yet Canadians have a longer life expectancy and lower infant moratlity rate. Canada has socialized medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ow-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/