HSKR

I'm thinkin' every state/county/city government pension fund is way, way underwater. Have to ask the wife, she's the cpa.

I can confirm Detroit's is for you.

http://www.ketv.com/news/politics/interim-fire-chief-confident-in-departments-budget/-/9674400/21669452/-/gxfdv2z/-/index.html

Getting rid of the old fire chief so you can actually try to meet your budget. I do kind of feel sorry for the old chief. Not sure how he is going to make it living off of a measly $130K a year pension.

There isn't a bigger screw job to taxpayers at the local level then what cities throw away at these type of pensions. The irony is how all the flaming liberals scream when anyone in the private sector makes that kind of money yet when government employees do, it's fine. There isn't a government job in the entire state of Nebraska that deserves that kind of pension, not even close.

I'd guess getting rid of him had more to do with this than anything.

http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/9204832.html

"the latest analysis of the police and fire pension plan shows that it is under-funded by more than $320 million. That's $40 million worse than projected last year."

Highway robbery.

My first thought is... 53 minutes?????

Absurd names can quickly become burdensome to society, and judges do have the job to smack down the wackos and idiots who make extraordinary attempts to break societal conventions and be weird for the sake of being weird and causing problems.

 

I would love to have real-world examples defending this sentence. What "burdens" have unusual names given to "society?"

http://www.dailymail...n-son-Hons.html

 

That took like 12 seconds to find.

 

 

 

Awesome. You should have spent another 12 seconds actually reading the article.

 

But court records last year stated that both of the children's parents had been victims themselves of childhood abuse and while unemployed, were suffering from unspecified physical and psychological disabilities.

 

Court records also show that Adolf, five, frequently threatened to kill people.

 

The mother reportedly had also once given a note to her neighbour saying she was terrified of her husband who had threatened to kill her.

Exactly. Thanks for helping out.

Just don't let the NCAA find out about this as I am sure they will try to find a reason to take his eligibility away if they find out about it.

He is usually one of the better guests when TnT have him on in Omaha. Watched one of his specials on netflix and it was better then a lot of the other stand ups I have seen but not a grand slam by any means. Not sure I understand the thought that he has fallen hard since I never really thought he was that big of a star to begin with?

Absurd names can quickly become burdensome to society, and judges do have the job to smack down the wackos and idiots who make extraordinary attempts to break societal conventions and be weird for the sake of being weird and causing problems.

 

I would love to have real-world examples defending this sentence. What "burdens" have unusual names given to "society?"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063487/Parents-named-children-Adolf-Hitler-Aryan-Nation-wont-receive-custody-newborn-son-Hons.html

That took like 12 seconds to find.

What a bummer, they took the free international stream offline now that they are starting up the American version on cable/sat. I blame Al Gore.

Our local station just reported that it will cost you 241K to raise your kid until he/she turns 18.

 

 

 

 

Contraceptives don't sound half bad, eh?

Of course that's assuming the parents actually pay for things themselves.

I know this, I just got my renewal notice for my family health insurance. The premium is going up 147.00 dollars a month for the upcoming fiscal year. So I talked to an insurance agent this morning. He believes it will be going up significantly the next year. Because I don't qualify for government subsidies my policy next year for a family of five they are estimating could be as high as 18,000 per year. Just thought I would let everyone know this.

OUCH

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights.

 

Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons.

 

Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me.

 

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

 

Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

I know firsthand of some bad decisions already being made by small business owners because they don't fully understand the regulations. Can you guess who is taking the brunt of the bad decisions? Yep, the employees.

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights.

 

Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons.

 

Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me.

 

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

 

Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

This is what I have been told as well which is ironic in that a lot the sob stories leading into this was the younger people were the ones who couldn't afford healthcare and now it will be made even more expensive for them.

Just spent an hour in a Webinar on Small Group Health Reform due to PPACA. f#*k me, man do I need some alcohol. A few highlights.

 

Pre-reform average yearly premium increases 15%. Post reform anticipated increases, that same 15% plus an additional 10% to 35%. The 10% guaranteed increase is due to funding required new patient centered research, absorbing new participants (those previously uninsured or excluded for various reason) and for redistribution of premium expense from the healthy to the unhealthy. An additional 0% to 25% may be experienced by current groups who are receiving a SIC code discount for their business industry. Net result, average premiums will now increase an additional 10% to 35%. Every single one of those "nice" provisions they put in Obamacare translates to increased expense for health insurers which in turn will be passed on to insured persons.

 

Currently older persons may pay as much as 5 to 7 times for their premiums as a healthy 21 year old. ACA limits that ratio to 3:1 now. Result; older persons are likely to see less of an increase and younger healthy persons will be picking up the tab. Selfishly, this does not necessarily bother this 50 year old guy. However, it does bother the anti-socialism capitalist in me.

 

I have a bunch of research to do to determine how my company will respond to this. At this point I would venture a very good guess that we will cease offering health insurance to employees and then their only option will be to get it on their own through the Exchange. We are a very small employer so we have no mandate to provide coverage and we will suffer no penalty. the only incentive for us to keep providing it is a pittance of a tax credit that is only approx. 6% of what we currently spend to provide the coverage.

 

Rant- There is something wrong with the system that requires me, the owner of a small business with less than 20 employees, to learn, know, understand, and comply with all these government regulations. I literally have to know it as well as the HR person in a company of 250+ employees who has the time to dedicate to this sole purpose. I don't have time for this sh#t, I've got real work to do.

 

 

Welcome to the system. I have been through several seminars on it and came away with the same feeling.

 

There is something wrong with a system that pushes you to give your employees LESS benefits and pushes them onto the government program.

Nothing wrong with the system at all since that was the design of it in the first place. The problem is people are starting to figure it out.

That was a nasty hit. Sponsors can't be too happy with that as Tony was in contention for a chase spot.

Not only does it not fix everything, it doesn't fix anything. There is nothing wrong with raising the minimum wage, but if you went from $7 to $12, jobs would be lost, period. There are a lot of low end manufacturing jobs even here in Nebraska that pay in that range. Do you really need more incentive to move jobs to Mexico? I just don't see how pulling some out of poverty is good when at the same time we would be sending more to the unemployment line.

 

While a "poverty class" is likely inevitable, the smaller that class is the better for everyone. What is the best way to reduce the number of people living at or below the poverty line?

To start lets flush Obamacare down the toilet where it belongs.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/brevard-county-cut-back-hours-some-part-time-emplo/nY2KK/

Raising minimum wage doesn't do any good when everyone will only be working 29 hours a week.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/acc/2013/07/22/commissioner-john-swofford-super-division/2574369/

"Among the changes up for discussion would be the formation of a so-called "super division" that would allow athletic departments with high-revenue football programs to make some of their own rules and implement things like athlete stipends."

BCS school or bust when this thing is done.

I'm sure the "study" would come out just like that. About the same as all the positive Obamacare predictions did. Come back and share when you can actually find some facts instead of hopes and dreams.

i am not seeing any studies disproving it or saying the the recent raises in the minimum wage has hurt the economy.

Of course that begs the question if it really would be that great then why wouldn't businesses simply do it themselves without the law requiring it? Don't any Liberals own businesses and set the example themselves? Since we know it's all the evil Republicans fault.

there is a lot of projection here. but who says business always operate in their best interests? or that they ever demonstrate foresight?

Oh and once again $15 billion into the economy is nothing compared to what we need.

oh the nirvana fallacy. if it does not fix everything, why let it help anything. meanwhile, the politicians were debating cutting funding to pbs.

So now you are saying there aren't any studies that showed the recent raises hurt the economy yet you can't do the same thing to show they helped? and at the same time we are supposed to believe a study that projects another will help?

Not only does it not fix everything, it doesn't fix anything. There is nothing wrong with raising the minimum wage, but if you went from $7 to $12, jobs would be lost, period. There are a lot of low end manufacturing jobs even here in Nebraska that pay in that range. Do you really need more incentive to move jobs to Mexico? I just don't see how pulling some out of poverty is good when at the same time we would be sending more to the unemployment line.

The average shopper wouldn't have to pay anymore after the employer cuts his staff to cover the additional costs of raising it to $12.

132,000 new jobs could be created

If the increase in economic activity reached $15.2 billion, retailers would need 132,000 new employees.

 

The wage increase would actually only cost retailers about 1 percent of total sales

Large retailers would need to absorb the higher labor cost for the 3.5 million workers earning less than $12.25 per hour. But according to Demos, most of this increase in costs would be returned to the firm in the form of productivity gains and increased revenues, amounting to only 1 percent of their total yearly sales.

I'm sure the "study" would come out just like that. About the same as all the positive Obamacare predictions did. Come back and share when you can actually find some facts instead of hopes and dreams.

Of course that begs the question if it really would be that great then why wouldn't businesses simply do it themselves without the law requiring it? Don't any Liberals own businesses and set the example themselves? Since we know it's all the evil Republicans fault.

Oh and once again $15 billion into the economy is nothing compared to what we need.

6 Ways A $12 Minimum Wage Would Help The Economy

 

Even if the nation's largest retailers decided to pass off the cost of a $12.25 minimum wage increase entirely to customers, Demos found that an average household would spend just 7 to 15 cents more per shopping trip.

• The average shopper would pay just 15 cents more per shopping trip at most
  

 

seems worth it.

The average shopper wouldn't have to pay anymore after the employer cuts his staff to cover the additional costs of raising it to $12.

Any support out there for a men's soccer team?

If you had to create the same amount of scholarships for women to offset men's soccer and then add in the fact that we already have a women's program I say it's a long long shot we get men's soccer anytime soon.

I had no idea Uranus was that big Walksalone.

 

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

 

Oh, there's definitely plenty to support my argument, history, for example.

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_2750336.html

 

Boehner's "job killer" grumble should come as no surprise. Business groups and their political allies have been "crying wolf" about the minimum wage ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed it during the Depression to help stimulate the economy. The critics warned that enacting a minimum wage would destroy employees' drive to work hard and would force many firms out of business. The minimum wage law, warned the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in 1937, "constitutes a step in the direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism." Congressman Edward Cox, a Georgia Democrat, said that the law "will destroy small industry." These ideas, Cox claimed, "are the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole constitutional system and the setting up of a Red Labor communistic despotism upon the ruins of our Christian civilization." Roosevelt and most members of Congress ignored these warnings and adopted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, establishing the federal minimum wage of 25 cents an hour.

 

Since then, each time Congress has considered raising the minimum wage, business groups and conservatives have repackaged the same arguments. In 1945, NAM claimed that, "The proposed jump from an hourly minimum of 40 to 65 cents at once, and 70 and 75 cents in the following years, is a reckless jolt to the economic system. Living standards, instead of being improved, would fall -- probably to record lows." Instead, the next three decades saw the biggest increased in living standards in the nation's history.

.....

 

In fact, raising the minimum wage is good for business and the overall economy. Why? Because when poor workers have more money to spend, they spend it, almost entirely in the local community, on basic necessities like housing, food, clothing and transportation. When consumer demand grows, businesses thrive, earn more profits, and create more jobs. Economists call this the "multiplier effect." According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy.

....

 

More than one-quarter of all jobs pay poverty-level wages. According to a National Employment Law Project study, the majority of new jobs created since 2010 pay just $13.83 an hour or less. This has contributed to the nation's widening economic inequality. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz recently said, "Increasing inequality means a weaker economy" for all of us.

You do realize how insignificant $21 billion pumped into our economy is don't you? Well probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have posted that. Probably better stick to the Jesus card.

Having said that, I'm in no way against raising the minimum wage. In fact I would be in favor of a bill that say every 5 years or so would raise it based on some type of inflation adjustment calculation. I'd much rather see that then letting the politicians barter with each other and throw in their pork for votes at unspecified adjustment periods.

Even if we did something like that, I have bad news for you libs, a minimum wage job would still be a minimum wage job and those workers would still be fighting from being in poverty. If you are making $13K a year or $17K a year, odds are you are still royally $%^&ed when it comes to finances. Of course the other bad thing that happens when you raise the minimum wage is a lot of those jobs simply disappear. Pay four guys $9 an hour instead of five guys $7 or better yet move the jobs to Mexico or China. So is it better to try to close the close the wealth gap and at the same time have less working?

Also if Jesus was a researcher, he would do his research for free.

You know why people at the bottom level get paid very little? Because there are a lot of them.

You know why there are a lot of people at the bottom? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the bottom are very commonplace.

 

You know why the people at the top get paid a lot? Because there are a few of them.

You know why there are a few people at the top? Because the KSAOs needed to be at the top are very rare.

f'ing nailed it.

 

If you have a minimum wage job it means you are easily replaceable. Whose fault is it that those people are only qualified for jobs that anyone can do? And why should anyone else give a sh#t if they don't make enough money to live well?

 

Exactly, I believe it was Jesus that said "Hoard all your money. F#@& the poor."

Godwin definitely needs to come up with another law that states when liberals have nothing left to support their losing argument they go to the Jesus card, the guy that none of them believes in yet they love to refer to him.

 

OK, so let's take ALL of the high salary employees money and give it to the low wage workers and still require McDonald's to break even so instead of $764 extra per year we may get it up to $1000 per year. So making $14K per year instead of $13K per year fixes the problem for you? I'd say it's better to leave it like it is otherwise liberals wouldn't have any room left to bitch about how low end jobs are still and always going to be low end jobs.

No job should have pay where a 40 hour work week leaves that person eligible for food stamps.

 

And its more than just the one CEO, through the thick layers of middle and upper management in companies, there are far too many people making far too much versus the majority of the workers. And with a franchise type operation like McDonald's there are a lot of people making a lot of money. Not just 1 guy.

Did you even read what I just said? Take ALL of the upper salary range money redistribute to the lower pay and STILL wouldn't be a significant enough dent to make it what you want it. Not even freaking close. The only other option left is to pay to employees so much that the company loses money. What happens next? End of company and 1.7 million more on the unemployment line. THAT is what happens with your logic.

Let me guess, a reply coming that says that there are a lot of people in upper and middle management that makes a lot of money that do nothing, just take theirs. Broken record.

Are you saying that anything above minimum wage takes specialized training that the person would need to accomplish before getting hired?

 

Not necessarily. But training certainly helps.

 

Do you think it reasonable for someone working full time at a multi-million dollar company to expect to get a livable wage? Do you think that someone working TWO full time jobs should live in what could only be described as poverty?

 

McDonald's made about $1.3 billion last year. http://www.nytimes.c...n-expected.html

 

Their CEO made $8.5 million. http://www.bloomberg...ws-pay-gap.html

 

A full time McDonald's employee makes $13,000 a year after taxes.

 

$1.3 billion divided by 1.7 million employees = $764 extra per employee per year if McDonald's breaks even.

 

That extra $14 a week should fix all the employees financial problems.

 

The CEO should donate his entire salary to the employees too. That would be a whole $5 per employee per year or 9 cents a week.

 

But hey, don't let mathematics ruin your illusion of the evil corporate monster.

By that logic, lets just get rid of min wages, after all, it wouldn't be that big a deal if the poor people had less, they don't have much to begin with. Give it all to the guys who don't really do crap (more than just the CEO make mega money in a franchise operation, there are lots and lots of people making high 6 figures or more.)

OK, so let's take ALL of the high salary employees money and give it to the low wage workers and still require McDonald's to break even so instead of $764 extra per year we may get it up to $1000 per year. So making $14K per year instead of $13K per year fixes the problem for you? I'd say it's better to leave it like it is otherwise liberals wouldn't have any room left to bitch about how low end jobs are still and always going to be low end jobs.