Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Diamante
msvagita
Mensajes: 45,131
Registrado: ‎06-20-2007

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republicanos?

Junior
gana9chavez16d
Mensajes: 54
Registrado: ‎11-29-2012

Re: Hay que ser un retrasado mental

TELEVISA MANDO AL CENSOR CATON DE MIERD@ A LIMPIAR EL FORO DE LA VERDADERA OPOSICION AL IMPERIO DEL TERROR!

JSHTICIERO SIN H EL MAS CENSURADO DEL FORO.
Miembro
gana10chavez16d
Mensajes: 3
Registrado: ‎11-29-2012

Re: Hay que ser un retrasado mental

Junior
abdala1869
Mensajes: 246
Registrado: ‎11-25-2012

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republicanos?

Supporters of Obamacare Admit It Hurts the Poor

Posted By Howard Hyde On November 29, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

Some supporters of Obamacare are honest enough to admit a few of its warts. Would that they would take those admissions to their logical conclusions.

David Gamage is an assistant professor of Law at UC Berkeley who has worked on the tax provisions of Obamacare for the Treasury Department. In an October 30 article in the Wall Street Journal (“ObamaCare’s Costs to the Working Class“), he expresses sincere concern over the presumably unintended consequences of the Obamacare law as written. Instead of repenting of his support for the law however, he advocates “further reform,” failing which dire consequences will ensue. What needs to be understood by ordinary citizens who are not privileged enough to be paid by the government to help the government command other people’s lives and money is that these consequences are predictable, were predicted, and that this is only the beginning of a vicious downward spiral.

The term “perverse incentive” appears seven times in Professor Gamage’s article. Accepting a higher-paid job could cost a citizen more on net balance than it is worth due to the loss of health-care subsidies. Employers now have every incentive to make as much of their workforce part-time (and thereby ineligible for health insurance benefits) as possible. “ObamaCare’s new subsidies may also create penalties for marriage and incentives for divorce.” People who have access to affordable individual coverage but NOT affordable family coverage through their employers will be disqualified from receiving family coverage from the Obamacare plan. And so on and on.

Yet he explicitly rejects any suggestion that the law is a lemon at best and that we should go back to the drawing board. Indeed, he opens with “It is time to move past the debate over whether ObamaCare was a good or a bad idea.” Really?

 

The second most-repeated phrase in the article is “further reforms” (which even appears once in the same sentence with the other winner, ‘”perverse incentives”):  “Without further reforms, the law will create unnecessary costs for working-class Americans.” “Without further reforms, many employers and employees will jointly benefit if employers make low-income employees part-timers rather than offering them health insurance.” “Even if these perverse incentives affect only a limited number of individuals, lawmakers should still strive to mitigate them through further reforms.” “Hence, whether we want to ‘repeal and replace’ ObamaCare, or ‘improve ObamaCare through further reforms,’ is merely a question of semantics.”

But “further reforms” is not a solution; it is merely continuing down the path to worse problems in response to problems created by the original legislation. Are we really supposed to believe that a 2,700-page bill and 10,000+ pages of derived regulations are fundamentally sound but merely insufficient, that we emphatically need more, more, further, further, further rules and regulations? Do we believe that more meddling and fiddling about to fix the first unintended consequences will have no unintended consequences of their own?

Government interventions in the market always create worse problems than the unsatisfactory original conditions they intend to solve. Maximum-price controls on milk to help poor mothers feed their babies lead to shortages of milk (and/or surpluses of butter, yoghurt and cheese) as marginal producers are unable to recoup their costs and go out of business and more people clamor for the lower-priced product, which leads the government to control the price of cattle feed in hopes of lowering dairy production costs, which leads to a shortage of cattle feed and an increase in the percentage of cows slaughtered for meat instead of being kept as milk producers.  It’s called Econ 101.

The only surprise in any of this is that people capable of passing the bar exam are unable to comprehend it.

Miembro
tehuelcheindianchief
Mensajes: 15
Registrado: ‎01-29-2009

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republic

El enfoque del titulo  hace pensar que mas bien la finalidad de encuesta es conocer antes que las opiniones de contexto en aportes al mejoramiento y contribucion de acuerdos politicos, es ver quienes se jactan de ser Democratas o Republicanos; y a mi entender esa no es la objetividad de preocupacion que nos embarga en la actualidad.Por tanto considero se deberia profundisar ,en esclarecer las situaciones realmente existentes y que si no se accede en los delineamientos de importancia para EE.UU.y para el Gobierno de turno,no solo van a significar los diez anios minimos que el pais estadounidense iba a necesitar para restablecer los deterioros emanados de gobierno que por obstinacion cometieron desajustes en lo social,economico principalmente y que repecutieron en gran escala al descredito mundial.Mi opinion Roberto Tata CHAGALLO poblador estadounidense.

 

 

 

 

Miembro
timieblas
Mensajes: 33
Registrado: ‎11-12-2012

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republic

Creo que para analizar, ya paso. Cuando se habla o rumora de los que se Jactan es algo asi como "Quien Nacio Primero el Pollo o la Gallina" o mas facil nos gustaria tener o estar siempre del bien... pues que mal. Ya que no se pueden separar el uno del otro. o sea "principios sin fin o final sin principios" tu decides hermano "Gran Toro" claravidente.

 

 

Acero
chepe57
Mensajes: 2,802
Registrado: ‎04-04-2004

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republic

ES CIERTO EL MOMENTO DE ANALIZAR POR QUIEN VOTAR YA PASO PERO LA CAUSA Y EFECTO TODOS LO SENTIREMOS  YA QUE LOS DEMOCRATAS CON OBAMA A LA CABEZA NOS ESTAN LLEBANDO A LA MISERIA IMPONIENDO EL SOCIALISMO DONDE LOS ARAGANES APROBECHAN PARA SER PARASITOS ,SNGUIJUELAS  VIVIENDO DE MI SUDOR E IMPUESTOS,LOS NEGROS SERAN MAS POBRES,LOS HISPANOS SERAN MAS POBRES YA QUE AL VOTAR SE HA ECHO POR TRIBUS O SEGMENTOS DETERMINADOS,NO SE VOTO POR MERITOS SINO QUE SE PREMIO AL GANADOR POR SU INEPTITUD Y POR ENDE PERDIDA DE LIDERASGO DE EE.UU A NIVEL MUNDIAL PRUEBA DE ELLOS ES LA ULTIMA VOTACION EN LA ONU DONDE EL LIDERASGO  DE EE.UU ESTA QUEDANDO EN EL PASADO.

Junior
bergom
Mensajes: 98
Registrado: ‎08-24-2011

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republic

Estos tres, el tal tachuella, tinieblas y chepe me dejaron anonadado. Que filosofia politica tan maravillosa, que pensamiento tan ilustre, que forma de analizar las cosas. Mejor dicho de aqui en adelante no se hablara mas. Barbaros, no entiendo nada de los que escriben, porque lo que quisieron decir, no dice nada. Mejor es que se pongan a estudiar estos cuatro anos para que cuando nos llegue la hora de decidir por quien votar, ya esten decididos votar DEMOCRATA.
Miembro
timieblas
Mensajes: 33
Registrado: ‎11-12-2012

Re: ¿Tú a quiénes apoyas? ¿A los Demócratas o a los Republic

Si nos dices porquien Votaste, Te diremos Quien Esta Mas Confundido, Porque en Lugar de ser bergom "con "b" chica deberias de ser Mogejon de molleja