progree
progree's Journal"On working harder and longer, Jeb! meant all those part-timers (because of Obamacare)"
"who want full-time jobs"
https://www.facebook.com/AM950Radio
[font color = blue]AM950Radio> Jeb Bush says that people need to start working longer and harder to improve the economy. What a statement from an heir of a family fortune! - [/font]
[font color = brown]R.W. Troll> ...try to be honest... He said those words, but it's pretty obvious that he meant more than the part time work they are doing now ( you know, the less than 30 hours a week because of Obamacare?)[/font]
[font color = blue]Carlos>
Under G.W. Bush, Part-time workers increased by 2,954,000
while full-time workers increased by 1,556,000
Under Obama, Part-time workers increased by 1,290,000
while full-time workers increased by 5,235,000
Seems like if anyone was the part-time president, it was G.W. Bush.
Since the bottom of the jobs market in February 2010 (coincidentally one month before Obamacare was passed and signed)
Part-time workers increased by 40,000 while full-time workers increased by 10,275,000
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Using the BLS's Table A-9 part-time and full-time numbers http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t09.htm
Part-time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12600000
Full-time workers: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12500000
Maybe Jeb! should talk to his big bro about what NOT to do.[/font]
-------------------------------------------------
AM950 is the only progressive talk radio station in Minnesota
By the way, the BLS's definition of full-time workers is 35 or more hours/week, while the Obamacare employer mandate for providing healthcare insurance is 30 hours/week. So if all that many employers were moving away from full-time to part-time jobs, it would show up in the above BLS statistics, but sure doesn't seem to. Also, involuntary part-timers has been falling for years.
Ouch! PBS Newshour's Politics Monday contrast Bernie's and Hillary's styles
SUSAN PAGE (USA Today): ... And, also, his (Bernie's) manner. She (Hillary) has got all kinds of problems in looking approachable and looking like she’s a fully-fledged human being. And he’s all — he’s just totally approachable. He’s 100 percent authentic, approachable Bernie Sanders. So I think the contrast is not helpful to her.
TAMARA KEITH (NPR): Yes.
GWEN IFILL: Go ahead.
TAMARA KEITH: I was just going to say that when I talk to people out when I’m reporting, they say things like, gosh, Bernie Sanders is just so real.
And it creates that contrast with Hillary Clinton, who has been in public life for so long. She’s had her picture taken so many times that she has that smile down just right. And Bernie is just out there being Bernie. And so it does create sort of a stylistic contrast for people.
Bif, Pow, Ouch,
That link above has the video of this segment (lots of fun to watch), not just the transcript.
Oh, start at about 3:00. But the goody above starts at 3:42.
[font color = red]On Edit: Much thanks to tomm2thumbs, here is the YouTube video:[/font]
U.S. House fails to pass Republican bill diluting Dodd-Frank reforms
Source: Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives failed on Wednesday to round up enough votes for a bill scaling back various financial reforms, a surprising defeat in an area conservatives hoped to prioritize this year.
... Before the vote on Wednesday, Democrats slammed the bill as a Republican effort to chip away at the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, including one provision that would have given banks extra time to comply with part of the Volcker rule.
... The most controversial aspect of the proposal was the section related to the Volcker rule, which bans banks from making risky trades with their own money and prohibits certain investments in financial products.
The bill gave banks more time to exit positions in collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs, which are essentially bundles of business loans. Banks had complained that they would have to quickly abandon those investments.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/u-house-fails-approve-bill-diluting-dodd-frank-204253008--sector.html
[font color = red]On Edit[/font] (thanks Sunseeker in #3) "The GOP used a procedure called a "suspension" that requires a 2/3 vote. So their majority was not enough. "
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/house-republicans-jobs-regulation-reform-bill-fails-suspension
(The above doesn't explain why the GOP chose to do the above, sigh. One question leads to another. Maybe Boner can't count.)
Anyway, great news, although probably Dodd-Frank, as watered down as it already is, will be insufficient to prevent another derivatives meltdown.
[font color = red]More on Edit:[/font]
PoliticAverse in #5 has the rollcall link (35 Democrats voted for and 1 Republican voted against)
See: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll009.xml
DCBob in #7 explains why the Repubs might have gone this route --
NYPD work slowdown will be dealt with ‘very forcefully,’ Bratton says
Source: Yahoo News
Commissioner investigating dramatic drops in arrests to determine whether the dip is a deliberate jab at NYC mayor
Any New York City police officers refusing to make arrests or issue traffic violations to express their dissatisfaction with Mayor Bill de Blasio will face forceful consequences, the department’s top cop said Monday.
New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said at a press conference that while he is not convinced the NYPD's rank-and-file is engaging in an organized work slowdown, he is actively investigating a dramatic drop in arrests in recent weeks and will deal swiftly with any intentional slacking off.
“We’re watching that very closely,” Bratton said Monday of the dip in summonses and arrests. He’s ordering a “comprehensive review of what has been happening,” drilling down to the precinct and squad car level to determine who is working and who may be dropping the ball.
The number of summonses in the city is down 90 percent for the week ending Sunday, according to the Daily News, while arrests are down 56 percent compared to the year before.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/nypd-work-slowdown-will-be-dealt-with--very-forcefully---bratton-says-230926632.html
and then there is some bilge about how this doesn't necessarily mean there is a work slowdown going on.
Black people shouldn't interrupt white people's dinner, according to some ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014980489 ), but I guess a 50-90% work slowdown is an OK form of protest.
‘Black brunch’ protesters interrupt diners in NYC, Oakland (#BlackBrunch #BlackLivesMatter)
Source: Yahoo News
In a twist on sit-in-style protests, civil rights activists entered several restaurants in New York City and Oakland, Calif., on Sunday in what organizers billed as “Black Brunch.”
About three dozen people participated in demonstrations in New York, where they momentarily “disrupted” meals at popular midtown eateries, including Lallisse, Maialino and Pershing Square — places protesters identified as predominantly “white spaces.”
At each stop, demonstrators read the names of African-Americans killed by police.
“Every 28 hours, a black person in America is killed by the police,” the protesters said. “These are our brothers and sisters. Today and every day, we honor their lives.”
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/black-brunch-protests-nyc-berkeley-oakland-190212742.html
Lots of tweets and pictures in the article -- definitely worth the click and scroll through. Here's one:
Are ACA-compliant plans sold outside the exchanges eligible for subsidies eventually?
My understanding has long been that one has to buy their plan on the appropriate government exchange (healthcare.gov for most states, or the state exchange for states that set up their own state exchange) in order to qualify for the premium subsidy and the out-of-pocket costs subsidy.
(By way of background, I'm in Minnesota, which has a state ACA health insurance exchange called MNSURE at MNSURE.org (don't ask me why its not MNSURE.gov) )
Now I'm being led to believe by a HealthPartners salesperson that all ACA-compliant plans, whether or not they are available on the appropriate exchange, is eligible for the subsidy.
He says (if I understood correctly):
(a) That those who buy their plan on the government exchange get immediate relief -- their monthly premiums are reduced by the subsidy. (I know that to be a fact because early last year I bought such a plan on MNSURE, and my monthly premiums are reduced by the subsidy)
(b) That those who buy an ACA compliant plan outside of the exchange also are eligible for the subsidy, but must wait until they file their tax return in order to get the subsidy (e.g. as a result of filing 2015 taxes in say March 2016, I will get whatever subsidy I'm entitled to for 2015 in the form of a refund (or reduction in taxes owed)). This statement I doubt.
(c) All HealthPartners individual plans -- not just the ones available on the government exchange (in my case, Minnesota, the MNSure state exchange) -- are ACA compliant. That agrees with a HealthPartners brochure that says:"Key plans meet all of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, all HealthPartners individual plans meet the standards so you don’t have to worry!"
So my Truth-o-meter says (a) and (c) are true, but (b) is very questionable -- nothing I've seen on HealthPartners literature (or anywhere else) says anything other than that only plans bought through the government exchange are eligible for tax credits and subsidies. Also he said he hasn't seen the 2015 tax forms yet (sounds like he's giving himself some wiggle-room).
(I'd call HealthPartners again, demanding something in writing or to be shown something on their web page that states this, but they aren't open until Monday for questions like these, which is also the deadline for changing plans that will take effect January 1).
I would like to look at HealthPartner plans other than those on MNSURE, but am afraid what I'm being told (that I'll get my subsidy after filing taxes) isn't true...
Does anyone have some perspective on this issue? Not just in Minnesota but in general -- are ACA compliant plans not sold on the appropriate government exchange eligible for the subsidies after filing taxes?
If not, why not?
Thanks for any info.
Are ACA-compliant plans sold outside the exchanges eligible for subsidies eventually?
My understanding has long been that one has to buy their plan on the appropriate government exchange (healthcare.gov for most states, or the state exchange for states that set up their own state exchange) in order to qualify for the premium subsidy and the out-of-pocket costs subsidy.
(By way of background, I'm in Minnesota, which has a state ACA health insurance exchange called MNSURE at MNSURE.org (don't ask me why its not MNSURE.gov) )
Now I'm being led to believe by a HealthPartners salesperson that all ACA-compliant plans, whether or not they are available on the appropriate exchange, is eligible for the subsidy.
He says (if I understood correctly):
(a) That those who buy their plan on the government exchange get immediate relief -- their monthly premiums are reduced by the subsidy. (I know that to be a fact because early last year I bought such a plan on MNSURE, and my monthly premiums are reduced by the subsidy)
(b) That those who buy an ACA compliant plan outside of the exchange also are eligible for the subsidy, but must wait until they file their tax return in order to get the subsidy (e.g. as a result of filing 2015 taxes in say March 2016, I will get whatever subsidy I'm entitled to for 2015 in the form of a refund (or reduction in taxes owed)). This statement I doubt.
(c) All HealthPartners individual plans -- not just the ones available on the government exchange (in my case, Minnesota, the MNSure state exchange) -- are ACA compliant. That agrees with a HealthPartners brochure that says:"Key plans meet all of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. In fact, all HealthPartners individual plans meet the standards so you don’t have to worry!"
So my Truth-o-meter says (a) and (c) are true, but (b) is very questionable -- nothing I've seen on HealthPartners literature (or anywhere else) says anything other than that only plans bought through the government exchange are eligible for tax credits and subsidies. Also he said he hasn't seen the 2015 tax forms yet (sounds like he's giving himself some wiggle-room).
(I'd call HealthPartners again, demanding something in writing or to be shown something on their web page that states this, but they aren't open until Monday for questions like these, which is also the deadline for changing plans that will take effect January 1).
I would like to look at HealthPartner plans other than those on MNSURE, but am afraid what I'm being told (that I'll get my subsidy after filing taxes) isn't true...
Does anyone have some perspective on this issue? Not just in Minnesota but in general -- are ACA compliant plans not sold on the appropriate government exchange eligible for the subsidies after filing taxes?
If not, why not?
Thanks for any info.
Creating "sit down jobs at community centers for self-entitled minorities" (FB: not hate speech)
Not hate speech or symbols, according to the Facebook Help Team.
Background: there was (and is) a Facebook posting about adding more bus shelters and improving some of the ones we have, in Minneapolis:
https://www.facebook.com/gary.l.cunningham/posts/10202002148970200
Buddy Ken writes: The whole system is nothing but an eye sore that has polluted my town, and ruined generational family businesses. Enjoy your new ghetto. I'm sure all the issues a ghetto is known to present will justify plenty of upcoming Democrat tax dollars for all sorts of social programs, and perpetuate plenty of sit down jobs at community centers for self entitled minorities in the near future.
(All emphasis in the above and throughout this posting is mine).
Anyway, I reported the comment. A couple days later I got this back:
Activity: You reported Buddy Ken's comment for containing hate speech or symbols.
Facebook Help Team response:
Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards. Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the comment you reported for containing hate speech or symbols and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards.
I guess one has to get into lynching threats and burning crosses in order to go over the line on Facebook. Or maybe that still wouldn't be enough
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Minnesota
Member since: Sat Jan 1, 2005, 04:45 AM
Number of posts: 10,901