UN Gun Treaty

[JoseCuervo]

F U Jose!!!

1234

 

[Solohuntr]

Sucks to work for a company that puts such little value in their employees.

yes it does but as they raise tax,s on the rich owner he,s going to cut costs somewhere, as he aint giving up his jet or his big house cuz of "us",,

thanks Barry Sorento !!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Solo,

If the guy with the jet isn't willing to make his business competitive except on the backs of his employees, then maybe he's not worth supporting.

I guess I view this a lot like drug testing. Just because someone makes you give up your right to privacy, doesn't mean you should advocate that infringement on others.

Again, apologies for the flippant comment.

 

[JoseCuervo]

yes it does but as they raise tax,s on the rich owner he,s going to cut costs somewhere, as he aint giving up his jet or his big house cuz of "us",,

thanks Barry Sorento !!

But he is perfectly happy providing you insurance for the next 2 years?

 

[JoseCuervo]

For the tinfoil crowd....

Romney's record on guns/hunting, per the McCain campaign when they vetted him. (And, remember they were the ones that vetted the Bat Shit Crazy Lady From Alaska).

In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with theNRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

Romney called Clinton crime bill “a big step forward.”

As governor, Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and vowed not to “chip away” at tough gun laws

In 2004, Romney signed permanent state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federalassault weapons ban.

In January 2006, Romney said he owned a gun – then two days later admitted he did not and the gunbelonged to his son.

Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, justbefore launching his presidential campaign.

Romney recently said he’s “been a hunter pretty much all my life” but later admitted he hunted only twice inhis life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted “small varmints … more than two times.”

In 2006 press conference, Romney claimed he had been hunting “many times” after returning from quail huntin Georgia.

 

[Solohuntr]

I think I am gonna go ahead and call bullshit on this nonsense, just like the rest of your ignorant statements.

You want us to believe that your company, which could drop benefits TOMORROW, is going to continue to voluntarily provide benefits for two more years, and then, when it becomes mandatory to do what they ALREADY do, they are going to quit doing it in order to pay a penalty?

Yeah, that sounds like more of your bullshit.


But, let's play along.

Is your company bigger or smaller than 50 employees? bigger

Is it privately owned or publicly owned?

private

College educated ;yes, I went to harvard, i just never took any class,s
work experience; minuteman project in arizona,, spying on wetbacks,
25 yrs military, now jounryman tool and die maker.
tail gunner on the bread truck for a while,
3.1 GPA with two assoc degree,s

And if you want to read Bullshit read the Gov link above, written by attorneys after hours so I cant pretend to understand all the legal ease, however when Nancy P> sez, I guess you will have to pass the bill to see whats in it,,,,,,, thats bull!

what little i do understand I dontr like, and I dont like you either ya no load pie eating chair wearing flamer.

 

[Nemont]

Solo,

Let me ask you this, if your boss lets the health plan go and you have to go to the exchange for your plan how does that make you better or worse off?

In addition if your boss is willing to sacrifice all his employees happiness and productivity by stopping a tax perferred benefit in order to pocket more money, you must work in an industry where he has no competition for skilled and productive workers.

In all seriousness I don't think you are understanding what would actually happen.

Nemont

 

[smarandr]

Thought it was about time to bust these out.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Nemont---I value your knowledgeable input on this thread and would ask if you think that there are many companies that will ditch their employee's insurance coverage and just take the penalty? Why or why not please? It sounds like from your comments to solo that you don't think it will happen.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont---I value your knowledgeable input on this thread and would ask if you think that there are many companies that will ditch their employee's insurance coverage and just take the penalty? Why or why not please? It sounds like from your comments to solo that you don't think it will happen.

Why would a company ditch their insurance in 2014 but not in 2012 (or 2011, or 2010, or 2009, or 2008)?

 

[Nemont]

Nemont---I value your knowledgeable input on this thread and would ask if you think that there are many companies that will ditch their employee's insurance coverage and just take the penalty? Why or why not please? It sounds like from your comments to solo that you don't think it will happen.

I don't see a mass migration for the first couple of years for a couple of reasons. Competition for high quality, productive employees is still fierce even in this economy. I have many of my clients complaining that they can not hire good people now.

The other issue is the tax preferred treatment of health premiums. Let's say an employer who employs 75 people suddenly drops their health plan and pays the penalty. On average that means that the employer would realize a windfall of around $5,800 or more per employee. (Average premium is about $7,800 per year and penalty is current $2,000 net to the employer is $5,800 on average). Now employees know that they lost a benefit and that the employer has money to pay them more. How many employees are just going to willingly take a $5,800 haircut and not demand more in wages? Now those dollars have to run through payroll rather than be tax preferred as they were when the employer paid them as premium. Additional payroll expenses will eat up much of the saving not to mention the impact on morale among the employers work force. Also there is nothing set in stone that the penalty would stay at $2,000.

I think for some employers, at the margin, who are stuggling to provide the benefit they will pull the plug but will do so reluctantly. Nobody who is in a business that competes for employees will want to be the first to take away such a benefit and recruiting tool.

Nemont

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Thanks Nemont! It's nice to get some decent answers that make sense instead of the BS that MR. Windbag keeps spouting in his posts, which are mostly questions that he probably has no idea what the answers are himself, LOL!

 

[noharleyyet]

Before this illuminating thread is archived, I'd just like to add:

 

[Papa-Zulu]

I hesitate to get into this pissing contest, but simply want to tell Ben Lamb not to insult my intelligence by referring to Media Matters, a left-wing organization that is totally biased. I have seen you in action, Ben, testifying during the Montana Legislature, and I know you are far smarter than to rely on Media Matters' propaganda. Barack Obama meant exactly what he said: If you are a successful business owner, you didn't do it on your own. You owe you success to the government. Despicable...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Zulu, I appreciate the faith in my intelligence. Could you tell my wife this?

Here's what the President said:

OBAMA: [L]ook, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.

I think that's a pretty good understanding of how America makes every ship rise, and how together, as a nation, we set the standard for innovation and invention. Or, at least, we used to.

 

[Tom]

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-...s&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Dick Morris is talking if Clinton signs the treaty and the President doesn't renounce the treaty, then we are bound by it from some Vienna thing in the past.

Then, our courts will enforce it with the congress never voting on it.

 

[Nemont]

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-...s&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

Dick Morris is talking if Clinton signs the treaty and the President doesn't renounce the treaty, then we are bound by it from some Vienna thing in the past.

Then, our courts will enforce it with the congress never voting on it.

Tom,
Have you ever read the Constitution and how Treaties are treated?

The President has no authority to agree to terms of a Treaty without the advice and consent of Congress.

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

If you are relying on Dick Morris for advice on Constitutionals question you may wish to get further advice from a reliable source.

Nemont

 

[MNHunter]

Damn you Nemont and your facts!

 

[Tom]

"two thirds of the Senators present" Say three democrats for gun control are present, only two have to vote and we're screwed. Crap, its too risky, why are Clinton and Obama planning on supporting this thing?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tom,

Out of 100 Senators, there are 51 Democrats. They need 67 votes to get to 2/3's. Do you think that any R's would be absent for this vote? Do you think any D's that are against this would miss this vote?

I've not seen a statement from the President of SOS that supports the treaty. Does anyone have that?