Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Let's just go ahead and start a thread about the coal guy

26 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

the nimby/niaby bullcrap regarding nuclear power is something i've never followed other liberals down the rabbit hole on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Not about the coal guy, but the local Georgia Pacific facility here near Goldsboro sent out notices prior to the election:

Basically the notices said that if re-elected, they would be forced to layoff workers and/or reduce full time workers to less than 30 hrs per week in order to afford Obamacare requirements in 2013.

Just this past weekend, Papa Johns owner basically announced the same thing.

I'm making no judgements, but if buisinesses resort to these measures in order to comply with mandatory healthcare requirements - then I really have to question is Obamacare worth it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes. Because it's about his legacy dammit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He spent that money to try and defeat Obama care. Plain and simple Romney in office= Repeal of Obama care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='g5jamz' timestamp='1352487156' post='1989460']
Good luck getting new nuke licenses.
[/quote]
That's not going to be the hard part. Finding financing for a nuclear plant is virtually impossible.

A nuclear plant has an expected ROI of about 30 years....longer than those evil solar panels even without government incentives.

Nobody wants to wait 30 years to see a return on their investment, so energy companies are largely going to have to self finance them. This is the main reason Duke and Progress sought to merge. The energy industry will see a lot more consolidation for this reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Davis83' timestamp='1352727956' post='1995706']
Not about the coal guy, but the local Georgia Pacific facility here near Goldsboro sent out notices prior to the election:

Basically the notices said that if re-elected, they would be forced to layoff workers and/or reduce full time workers to less than 30 hrs per week in order to afford Obamacare requirements in 2013.

Just this past weekend, Papa Johns owner basically announced the same thing.

I'm making no judgements, but if buisinesses resort to these measures in order to comply with mandatory healthcare requirements - then I really have to question is Obamacare worth it?
[/quote]

they're all keenly aware that romney couldn't just write an executive order to call the whole thing off nor was there going to be another supreme court case that saved them. additionally, it'd be until at least 2014 when the senate could have possibly flipped to the republicans which would have enabled a repeal. really, what is it about obama's re-election that magically triggered these layoffs?

they're doing it out of spite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

More information about this maneuver from a reddit q&a with a citation from a legal firm:


[size=4][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Question[/b]: Can't businesses just fire employees or make them work part-time to get around this requirement? Also, what about businesses with multiple locations?[/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Answer[/b]: Switching to part-time only won't help, as the Affordable Care Act counts the hours worked, not the number of full-time employees you have. So if your employees worked an equivalent of 50 full-time employees' hours, the requirement kicks in. Really, the only plausible way a business could reasonably utilize this strategy is if they currently operate with [i]just[/i] over the 50-employee number, and could still operate with under 50 employees, and have no intention to expand. Also, regarding the questions about multiple locations, [url="http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/special-health-care-reform-series-special-focus-on-the-employer-employee-relationship-part-i-8-15-2012/"]this[/url] legal website analyzed the law and claims that multiple locations in one chain all count as a part of the same business (meaning employers like Wal-Mart can't get around this by being under 50 employees in one store - they'd have to be under that for the entire [i]chain[/i], which just ain't happening). Independently-owned franchises are different, however, as they have a separate owner and as such aren't included under the same net as the parent company. However, any individual franchise with over 50 employees [i]will[/i] have to meet the requirement.[/font][/color][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='I Registered To Post This' timestamp='1352737224' post='1995955']
More information about this maneuver from a reddit q&a with a citation from a legal firm:


[size=4][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Question[/b]: Can't businesses just fire employees or make them work part-time to get around this requirement? Also, what about businesses with multiple locations?[/font][/color][/size]

[size=4][color=#000000][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b]Answer[/b]: Switching to part-time only won't help, as the Affordable Care Act counts the hours worked, not the number of full-time employees you have. So if your employees worked an equivalent of 50 full-time employees' hours, the requirement kicks in. Really, the only plausible way a business could reasonably utilize this strategy is if they currently operate with [i]just[/i] over the 50-employee number, and could still operate with under 50 employees, and have no intention to expand. Also, regarding the questions about multiple locations, [url="http://www.bakerlaw.com/alerts/special-health-care-reform-series-special-focus-on-the-employer-employee-relationship-part-i-8-15-2012/"]this[/url] legal website analyzed the law and claims that multiple locations in one chain all count as a part of the same business (meaning employers like Wal-Mart can't get around this by being under 50 employees in one store - they'd have to be under that for the entire [i]chain[/i], which just ain't happening). Independently-owned franchises are different, however, as they have a separate owner and as such aren't included under the same net as the parent company. However, any individual franchise with over 50 employees [i]will[/i] have to meet the requirement.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]
I work in the Steel Industry in NC. One of our customers in SC told us they had 97 employees in 2008.During the early stages of the recession they cut back to 48 with a promise to rehire when they could. After Obama care passed their Ownership confided in our outside salesman that they wouldn't be able to expand to over fifty employees again after O-care became truth.

Also on a personal note I pay 60 a week for a family plan insurance but regardless of that I will lose 1200 in taxes (YES it is a tax) Because my wife doesn't have her OWN plan though she is on mine. Yeah that is crap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='TbTeRRoR' timestamp='1352758014' post='1996793']
Also on a personal note I pay 60 a week for a family plan insurance but regardless of that I will lose 1200 in taxes (YES it is a tax) Because my wife doesn't have her OWN plan though she is on mine. Yeah that is crap
[/quote]

Really? I thought if you had health insurance you didnt have to pay? I mean thats the entire purpose of the tax/ penalty/ whatever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='thatlookseasy' timestamp='1352758476' post='1996798']
Really? I thought if you had health insurance you didnt have to pay? I mean thats the entire purpose of the tax/ penalty/ whatever
[/quote]
The way it was explained to me is that each independent over 18 has to have their OWN insurance. Its buried in that BS taxation they are calling a bill somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This may be off topic but, can anyone with any sort of economic knowledge explain to be why we aren't taxing carbon emissions, or at least moving in that direction?

There's no better way to incentivize a move away from coal and other fossil fuels to more sustainable/cleaner energy than a carbon tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='TbTeRRoR' timestamp='1352735155' post='1995898']
He spent that money to try and defeat Obama care. Plain and simple Romney in office= Repeal of Obama care
[/quote]
lol repeal Obamacare to install Romneycare. Huge difference!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites