CEO's blame layoffs and reduced hours on Obama re-election

[Laize]

What makes it a surplus, is the fact that a federal budget does not include the interest rate of existing debt. The budget was a surplus, but the spending was not, due to the the interest. Interest, that in your chart equaled to 15% of Clinton's whole budget. The fact that Clinton's budget surplus was not large enouph to cover interest, does not negate his surplus. It should have gone to pay for at least part of the interest, but a Bush tax cut nuked it.

I'm unaware of any definition of "budget" that doesn't count "interest" as an expense.

[stabetha]

i can tell you for an absolute fact that this is not accurate. a couple of weeks ago my cousin was hit by a hit-and-run driver in new orleans. the cops didnt bother to try to find the driver. the hospitals refused to treat him because he had no insurance. they actually released him, his dad had to drive down from tennessee to get him. the injury? his thigh was laid open almost to the bone from about 3 inches from his pelvis to about 2 inches from his knee

and was the doctor that turned him away bigfoot and the cops loch ness monsters?
I don't buy this for one sec.

[darenyon]

and was the doctor that turned him away bigfoot and the cops loch ness monsters?
I don't buy this for one sec.

hospitals arent required to do more than "stabilize" someone if they deem it an emergency.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...-patients.aspx

[jmt]

hospitals arent required to do more than "stabilize" someone if they deem it an emergency.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stor...-patients.aspx

If you walk into a hospital bleeding, you're not going to walk out in the same condition unless it's your choice. If you do, you essentially have grounds for legal action.

[smrund]

If you walk into a hospital bleeding, you're not going to walk out in the same condition unless it's your choice. If you do, you essentially have grounds for legal action.

No, you may get carried out in a casket.

[Riidii]

No, you may get carried out in a casket.

Well, ya.

But that's the case with everyone, insurance or not.

[Spectral]

I'm unaware of any definition of "budget" that doesn't count "interest" as an expense.

The phrase people should be using is that there was a primary surplus. That's accurate, and shouldn't mislead anyone that's familiar with the nomenclature.

[darenyon]

If you walk into a hospital bleeding, you're not going to walk out in the same condition unless it's your choice. If you do, you essentially have grounds for legal action.

"Legal action" involves them paying a fine (and no treatment for you who may be dead by then).

[jmt]

It'd make my job so much easier if that were the case. Hospitals aren't fined in that situation. Although it varies by injury, they're sued. And if they don't settle out of court, they get drilled by juries.

The definition of stabilize is a lot more detailed in the healthcare community.

[Decklan]

Hospitals and indeed most companies will try to settle out of court for lawsuits. A, open court lawsuit will follow you around forever, a settlement won't.

[Laize]

The phrase people should be using is that there was a primary surplus. That's accurate, and shouldn't mislead anyone that's familiar with the nomenclature.

That I can accept.

There's no question that the deficits were extremely tiny under Clinton. None whatsoever.

We should have certainly continued along that path.

What's completely farcical is the idea that some people have that there was no debt under Clinton and Bush squandered that.

[smelltheglove]

and was the doctor that turned him away bigfoot and the cops loch ness monsters?
I don't buy this for one sec.

why should you? you dont believe absolute facts presented to you that arent in agreement with your preconceived notions, so i wouldnt expect you to believe what i admit is anecdotal evidence. but i know the people involved and the truth of the matter, so whatever

[smrund]

That I can accept.

There's no question that the deficits were extremely tiny under Clinton. None whatsoever.

We should have certainly continued along that path.

What's completely farcical is the idea that some people have that there was no debt under Clinton and Bush squandered that.

Right, Bush didn't magically create 14 trillion dollars in debt, it's been there for decades. The economy was just healthy enough and the budget balanced enough and Congress was actually willing to compromise and get things done that we weren't losing money so horribly.

[Spectral]

What's completely farcical is the idea that some people have that there was no debt under Clinton and Bush squandered that.

Agreed. It's basically a fairy tale, but is one of those things that's just accepted and stated so readily that many people believe it to be true. I never really enjoy that sort of thing.

[Felya420]

The phrase people should be using is that there was a primary surplus. That's accurate, and shouldn't mislead anyone that's familiar with the nomenclature.

But, for those who are not familiar, shouldn't the budget without interest be enouph of an explanation? It was this justification, which ignored the interest on the debt, that was used for the Bush tax cuts.

[Laize]

But, for those who are not familiar, shouldn't the budget without interest be enouph of an explanation? It was this justification, which ignored the interest on the debt, that was used for the Bush tax cuts.

I don't care, personally, what the justification was for the Bush tax cuts. They were stupid to leave in place as he decided to go to war.

[Spectral]

I don't care, personally, what the justification was for the Bush tax cuts. They were stupid to leave in place as he decided to go to war.

This is my feeling as well. Whatever else can be said of Bush's tax policy, I firmly disagree with the idea of conducting a war and allowing the public to not even feel a financial hit from it. War weariness has a positive purpose.

[mvallas]

In regards to the Papa Johns guy...

Yeah - that poor soul has to willingly sacrifice his staff for Obamacare....

...but the good news is his competitors (who face the same problem) instead of laying off their key staff of expert pizza makers would simply increase the prices of their pizzas by $1. Not only would the extra income take care of any new taxes pressed upon them, but they might have some surplus left over from any leftover residuals to hire the disenfranchised Pappa John's employees who are eager for revenge upon their former employer for being used as a political tool instead of looking at other options.

...and don't tell me that NOBODY would still buy their pizzas if they went up by a buck. Brand loyalty goes a long way... just ask any Blizzard fan. :P

[jmt]

In regards to the Papa Johns guy...

Yeah - that poor soul has to willingly sacrifice his staff for Obamacare....

...but the good news is his competitors (who face the same problem) instead of laying off their key staff of expert pizza makers would simply increase the prices of their pizzas by $1. Not only would the extra income take care of any new taxes pressed upon them, but they might have some surplus left over from any leftover residuals to hire the disenfranchised Pappa John's employees who are eager for revenge upon their former employer for being used as a political tool instead of looking at other options.

...and don't tell me that NOBODY would still buy their pizzas if they went up by a buck. Brand loyalty goes a long way... just ask any Blizzard fan. :P

But therein lies the problem. If we say that pizza costs $10, $1 would be a 10% increase. If every company feeling the pressure from Obamacare raised their prices 10%, we'd be in even more trouble.

In a few months, most people won't even remember the lay-offs from Papa Johns. And when it's cheaper to buy pizza from PJs, people will do so.

[Zigzagzoom]

Yea most ppl are still going to buy the pizza which is a better deal in the end. Most rarely stop to consider the political philosophies of the pizza dude before placing an order.