I own a business that employs 62 people. Under Obamacare I am legally bound (because I have more than 50 employees) to offer a health plan that will average (my best guess $500 per employee per month) which equals $31,500 per month or $378K per year. My company competes with several competition that have 30-40 employees and do not have to supply a plan, how am I supposed to comply with the law and still compete with companies that are exempt?
How in the world are companies that are marginally profitable ever going to make it?
I predict layoffs and huge price increases, am I wrong?
Businesses with 100 or fewer workers can jump into a state SHOP Exchange pool starting in 2014; states may choose to limit the pools to firms with 50 or fewer employees through 2016. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the SHOP Exchanges would lower annual premiums for these businesses by 1-4% with a 3% increase in the amount of coverage. That could mean a savings of more than $10 billion nationally.
or pay the 750 and put your people in the exchanges...the exchanges will be great for people that want to retire early (opening up jobs for younger people)...it's all good dirtman!
My husband and I own a company that hires only union employees. We've successfully run our business for 23 years. The most employees ever was probably 15-20 but we are currently down to 5. We pay over $6 per hour to the union for health care alone and another $7 per hour for pension. We've always competed against non-union companies who don't even pay the same wage scale let alone the benefits. Do I jump for joy every time I write those checks to the union? No, of course not. But we've made a good living for ourselves and we've seen that our employees are taken care of too. But then most of the people on this forum would call me another bleeding heart liberal.
Thank you Shelquilts - it's refreshing to see an employer treat their employees well these days. It's been my personal observation that employees who are treated well tend to work harder and better. Kudos.
I own a business that employs 62 people. Under Obamacare I am legally bound (because I have more than 50 employees) to offer a health plan that will average (my best guess $500 per employee per month) which equals $31,500 per month or $378K per year. My company competes with several competition that have 30-40 employees and do not have to supply a plan, how am I supposed to comply with the law and still compete with companies that are exempt?
How in the world are companies that are marginally profitable ever going to make it?
I predict layoffs and huge price increases, am I wrong?
No, I don't think you are wrong.... If I were you----I would restructure to get below the 50 number. I would bet the 378k per year will grow to over 500k before this mandate takes effect. The 12 or 13 people can just get on the Welfare and Food Stamp roles---- the New Government will appreciate your contribution to making everyone dependant on them.......
Health Insurance companies are required by law ( Affordable Care Act) to refund premiums it received if they did not spend at least 80% of premiums on health care. The 80/20 rule. You have to reimburse the employees this money depending on your plan coverage for what they pay for coverage. There are other ways too like use as in reducing preiumns for the upcoming year
Given 52 weeks in a year that is 27k per employee for health care and pension. How much does one of your average employes make on top of that? This sounds like a very high dollar operation that must generate huge profits to pay these kind of expenses, pay high wages and still have profit for reinvestment. I would never call anybody a bleeding heart who is spending their money how they CHOOSE to do it. I call bleeding heart liberals those who demand and take money from other peoples pockets through taxes to pay for the programs THEY think are important. Congrats for finding a way to make your business work for you.
I still don't see how companies with lower wage workers, say hamburger flippers can generate enough profit to pay for health plans.
Shelquilts said:
My husband and I own a company that hires only union employees. We've successfully run our business for 23 years. The most employees ever was probably 15-20 but we are currently down to 5. We pay over $6 per hour to the union for health care alone and another $7 per hour for pension. We've always competed against non-union companies who don't even pay the same wage scale let alone the benefits. Do I jump for joy every time I write those checks to the union? No, of course not. But we've made a good living for ourselves and we've seen that our employees are taken care of too. But then most of the people on this forum would call me another bleeding heart liberal.
I still don't see how companies with lower wage workers, say hamburger flippers can generate enough profit to pay for health plans.
Well maybe you better look again. The average McDonalds franchise owner should net about 10% of sales for each restaurant owned according to Mr. Franchise. The average McDonalds restaurant open at least a year had sales of $2.3 million in 2008. The highest performing U.S. McDonalds in 2008 hit $9.5 million in sales while the lowest performing restaurant clocked in at $491,000
While an average McDonald's grosses $2.2 million a year, seasoned managers who motivate employees and keep customers coming back can add more than $200,000 to that total. "Restaurant managers are in the most important position in our company," says Richard Floersch, McDonald's chief human resources officer. Yet despite generous salaries—up to $62,000 plus bonus and company car, say insiders—turnover is a constant concern in an industry that typically sees 43% of its staff leave each year." So, a high performing manager who cares nets you an additional 200K in revenue (roughly 10% more revenue) per location, if you own a franchise or a block of franchises. That sounds good. The real question is what would you offer that manager above and beyond the 62K salary, bonus and car (total package 80K) to hang around and help you access the additional 200K?
What is the cost of getting a McDonalds franchise?
How hard was that?
How Much Does a McDonald's Franchise Cost?
"How Much Does a McDonald's Franchise Cost?" The McDonald's Corporation requires a minimum of $250,000 of non-borrowed personal resources to consider you for a franchise. In other words you need $250,000 cash on hand to just start the discussion process with McDonald's. If you do not have $250,000 available click here to contact a franchise consultant who can recommend other great franchises in your specific price range. If you have $250,000 available read on...
Most McDonald's franchisees enter the McDonald's System by purchasing an existing restaurant, either from McDonald’s or from a McDonald's Owner/Operator. A small number of new operators enter the System by purchasing a new restaurant. In most cases McDonald's provides the land and building to run the McDonald's franchise. The franchisee pays rent to McDonald's for use of the land and building. This is different from many other food franchises, which do not typically own all the land on which their restaurants are located.
McDonald's is looking for individuals with the ability to manage finances, motivate & train people, have the willingness to complete a comprehensive training program and their devote full time to operating the restaurant. If you feel you have these qualities McDonald's may be right for you.
Coming back to the topic once again, As there is an increase in costs of health care facilities in Obama Care as suggested be latest news. Which I think is really wired and hard to digest for lots of people who were having concerns with health care and insurance policies, because absolutely going out of reach.
Coming back to the topic once again, As there is an increase in costs of health care facilities in Obama Care as suggested be latest news. Which I think is really wired and hard to digest for lots of people who were having concerns with health care and insurance policies, because absolutely going out of reach.
I work in facilities for a very large community College and have the same benefits as most other state employees and recieved this in my email today. I have no problems digesting it, do you?.
To: All Employees/All campuses Re: Yavapai Combined Trust Group Health Insurance – News! Hello Everyone, and welcome back from Spring Break! We have some good news to share with you – the Yavapai Combined Trust Board has voted to apply no increase to the group health premiums for plan year 2013-2014! For those of you with dependent coverage, this means no increase in what is deducted from your pay. For the College, this represents a savings. This also represents the solid footing that YCT has, and that is unique in today’s healthcare environment.
I work in facilities for a very large community College and have the same benefits as most other state employees and recieved this in my email today. I have no problems digesting it, do you?.
To: All Employees/All campuses
Re: Yavapai Combined Trust Group Health Insurance – News!
Hello Everyone, and welcome back from Spring Break!
We have some good news to share with you – the Yavapai Combined Trust Board has voted to apply no increase to the group health premiums for plan year 2013-2014! For those of you with dependent coverage, this means no increase in what is deducted from your pay. For the College, this represents a savings. This also represents the solid footing that YCT has, and that is unique in today’s healthcare environment.
I think large groups will have better premiums and fare better. Individuals and small businesses have seen the largest increases. If you qualify for the subsidies healthcare is relatively inexpensive but those who do not qualify will see increased rates to pay for the subsidies. It all has to paid for one way or another, unless our government just keeps borrowing money to pay for things like it has.
Dirtsurfer......hopefully you have missread the tables.If you had a policy like my exsisting one :10000 dollar deductible,pages of exclusions and gotcha clauses...basically worthless except as protection of my property in case of a huge medical bill then you most likely saw it increase a 100 a month.If you have pre existing conditions Obamacare limits the amount the companies can charge you over the baseline.This is a very good thing as currently they can jack you up when you have a problem tooutrageous levels. What good is insurance that does nothing for you when you need it? a average Joe in Arizona will benefit from this program.....
Dirtsurfer......hopefully you have missread the tables.If you had a policy like my exsisting one :10000 dollar deductible,pages of exclusions and gotcha clauses...basically worthless except as protection of my property in case of a huge medical bill then you most likely saw it increase a 100 a month.If you have pre existing conditions Obamacare limits the amount the companies can charge you over the baseline.This is a very good thing as currently they can jack you up when you have a problem tooutrageous levels. What good is insurance that does nothing for you when you need it? a average Joe in Arizona will benefit from this program.....
I guess I am not average. I had a $2500 deductible per person in my family plan and the 80/20 after that. I am shopping and will let you now what I find but the first three quotes are very ugly. It all is about means testing. To look at it any other way is illogical and unfounded. Higher income earners will be stuck with higher premiums to pay for those that don't pay the full cost, pure and simple. I cannot even come close to the great and cheap coverage provided to those that qualify for the subsidies.
Southbeacher: I am not being political, just stating facts. If obummercare reduced my rates and gave me better coverage I would be all over it.
Jerry: the average Joe you mention will surely benefit but will never pay the true cost of the insurance. It is a handout.
I guess I am not average. I had a $2500 deductible per person in my family plan and the 80/20 after that. I am shopping and will let you now what I find but the first three quotes are very ugly. It all is about means testing. To look at it any other way is illogical and unfounded. Higher income earners will be stuck with higher premiums to pay for those that don't pay the full cost, pure and simple. I cannot even come close to the great and cheap coverage provided to those that qualify for the subsidies.
Southbeacher: I am not being political, just stating facts. If obummercare reduced my rates and gave me better coverage I would be all over it.
Jerry: the average Joe you mention will surely benefit but will never pay the true cost of the insurance. It is a handout.
The Euros insure everyone..why can't we? I met a guy in Cascade Idaho this week that was arranging a benefit for his friend so he could afford Chemo therapy....The guy is a logger who was laid off and lost his insurance.What the hell is wrong with a country that makes the working man beg for pills like a monkey on a chain.....he has 3 children..
I guess I am not average. I had a $2500 deductible per person in my family plan and the 80/20 after that. I am shopping and will let you now what I find but the first three quotes are very ugly. It all is about means testing. To look at it any other way is illogical and unfounded. Higher income earners will be stuck with higher premiums to pay for those that don't pay the full cost, pure and simple. I cannot even come close to the great and cheap coverage provided to those that qualify for the subsidies.
Southbeacher: I am not being political, just stating facts. If obummercare reduced my rates and gave me better coverage I would be all over it.
Jerry: the average Joe you mention will surely benefit but will never pay the true cost of the insurance. It is a handout.
80 20 will bankrupt you if say you get nailed by Diamondback or need extended rehab.....junk insurance is just that...junk
Southbeacher: I am not being political, just stating facts. If obummercare reduced my rates and gave me better coverage I would be all over it.
Didn't mean you, Dirt. Was just referring to my own reaction to the subject as it relates to, say, blood pressure and my tendency to be outspoken. As far as your grievances, they only touch the surface of . . . uh . . . surprises in store. But there I go again. Shields up. Signing out.
See what I mean, Dirt? These things always deteriorate into mud slinging, which of course never addresses or resolves the issue. Futile. What does count, though, is that I make the best margaritas.
See what I mean, Dirt? These things always deteriorate into mud slinging, which of course never addresses or resolves the issue. Futile. What does count, though, is that I make the best margaritas.
Wait a second SBeacher. He NEVER once mentioned Fox News or O'Reilly. Give credit where credit is due.
Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are
A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start…
Forbes
Need a lot more margaritas in my life!
My invention (by name only) is the "summer special" whereby you order a margarita and a beer at the same time, several times. Can we all agree this is genius?
Need a lot more margaritas in my life!
My invention (by name only) is the "summer special" whereby you order a margarita and a beer at the same time, several times. Can we all agree this is genius?
That's why I drink Limeritas when here in the sticks.
I think large groups will have better premiums and fare better. Individuals and small businesses have seen the largest increases. If you qualify for the subsidies healthcare is relatively inexpensive but those who do not qualify will see increased rates to pay for the subsidies. It all has to paid for one way or another, unless our government just keeps borrowing money to pay for things like it has.
Especially the large groups that get taxpayer funding. Voting 'not to increase the payments' is not a viable option for most small business.
I subsidize homeowners,people with kids,people who join the military,people with farms,people with cattle,people that get paid not to grow cotton,people that live in coastal flooding areas.....why does this one bother you so much...
I don't believe in any forced subsidies, giving or handouts. I especially don't want to pay another giant bureaucracy to "manage" health care. I am absolutely not opposed to individuals supporting, giving, donating and choosing to help individuals or organizations.
For me, (and I would like to see an intelligent arguement that counters my feelings) income taxes are no different that slavery. Right I now I am forced to give up almost a third of my productive, hard earned income, no different than forcing me to work for free as a slave. The government forces me to pay these taxes and severely punishes me if I don't just as a slaveholder forces his slaves to work and punishes then if they don't.
I sum it up as this: Leave me the hell alone, I leave you the hell alone. If I CHOOSE to donate or help the needy it is entirely my decision. Government should be limited, and focused on infrastructure, military, police and law.
Well,we are one nation and use the same roads,poop in the same sewer lines,educate our kids in the same schools( or get subsides to pay some conmen to teach them Jesus had a pet Dinosaur in a religious school) It is a fact that our tax rate is lower than in Ike's day.Things are pretty good these days and if talk radio did not keep making well off white people think they are oppressed we would all be happier
Well,we are one nation and use the same roads,poop in the same sewer lines,educate our kids in the same schools( or get subsides to pay some conmen to teach them Jesus had a pet Dinosaur in a religious school). It is a fact that our tax rate is lower than in Ike's day.Things are pretty good these days and if talk radio did not keep making well off white people think they are oppressed we would all be happier
You must have gone to Harvard, or another Ivy league school, because that last sentence I just do not understand.
Can you repeat that in Phoenix College language ??
For me, (and I would like to see an intelligent arguement that counters my feelings) income taxes are no different that slavery. Right I now I am forced to give up almost a third of my productive, hard earned income, no different than forcing me to work for free as a slave. The government forces me to pay these taxes and severely punishes me if I don't just as a slaveholder forces his slaves to work and punishes then if they don't.
I sum it up as this: Leave me the hell alone, I leave you the hell alone.
This is a silly argument. You seem to forget what you get in return for the taxes you pay. Maybe if you would agree to not use ANY goverment supplied or subsidized services at any time you would not have to pay taxes. No roads to drive on, no schools for your children, no hospitals, no electricity, etc. you can add to this list if you think about it.
Additionally it is good that you describe your thoughts as feelings as no one can argue against feelings, they are yours. Facts are another matter.
" If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" " what I meant to say was if you Insurance company kicks you ass to the curb come join the ACA......."
No matter what type of health insurance you have, from subsidized health plans on the marketplace to high-end insurance plans, your access to doctor doesn't change in under ObamaCare. Your choice of doctors is still based on provider networks just like it is today. As a rule of thumb the smaller the network, the less doctor choices you have. However, competition on ObamaCare's marketplace may result in more aggressive marketing of plans meaning low priced plans may have wider networks moving forward into 2014 than they do today.
interesting thread - personally, I have no problem with paying taxes as part of life as I know it.
life is great, more folks should try enjoying their own lives and worry less about what other folks are thinking or doing.
Kenny: I 200% disagree with your cartoon. Nowhere in the Libertarian platform or philosophy is bigotry, wage slavery or poverty encouraged or thought to be the result of more freedom. Currently, I feel like I have a boot on my neck from wage slavery. Every hard earned dollar I make has a huge chunk forcibly taken from me in the form of taxes. The more I make the greater the percentage taken. I have absolutely no say in the matter and if I don't pay I am subject to severe penalties and jail. If you want to talk slavery our income tax laws are a great example and define slavery exactly. Currently I have been working 7 days a week ( for about 3 months), why should I be penalized through increased taxes for my productivity? Wage slavery at its best! Read on: Is There a Way Out?
Walter E. Williams | Oct 30, 2013
Recommend this article
1.9K
Tweet
103
189
According to a recent Fox News poll, 73 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, up 20 points from 2012. Americans sense that there's a lot going wrong in our nation, but most don't have a clue about the true nature of our problem. If they had a clue, most would have little stomach for what would be necessary to arrest our national decline. Let's look at it.
Between two-thirds and three-quarters of federal spending, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution, can be described as Congress taking the earnings or property of one American to give to another, to whom it does not belong. You say, "Williams, what do you mean?" Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there's no Santa Claus or tooth fairy who gives it resources. The fact that Congress has no resources of its very own forces us to recognize that the only way Congress can give one American one dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- confiscate that dollar from some other American through the tax code.
If any American did privately what Congress does publicly, he'd be condemned as an ordinary thief. Taking what belongs to one American to give to another is theft, and the receiver is a recipient of stolen property. Most Americans would suffer considerable anguish and cognitive dissonance seeing themselves as recipients of stolen property, so congressional theft has to be euphemized and given a respectable name. That respectable name is "entitlement." Merriam-Webster defines entitlement as "the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something." For example, I am entitled to walk into the house that I own. I am entitled to drive the car that I own. The challenging question is whether I am also entitled to what you or some other American owns.
Let's look at a few of these entitlements. More than 40 percent of federal spending is for entitlements for the elderly in the forms of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, housing and other assistance programs. The Office of Management and Budget calculates that total entitlement spending comes to about 62 percent of federal spending. Military spending totals 19 percent of federal spending. By the way, putting those two figures into historical perspective demonstrates the success we've had becoming a handout nation. In 1962, military expenditures were almost 50 percent of the federal budget, and entitlement spending was a mere 31 percent. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that entitlement spending will consume all federal tax revenue by 2048.
Entitlement spending is not the only form of legalized theft. The Department of Agriculture gives billions of dollars to farmers. The departments of Energy and Commerce give billions of dollars and subsidized loans to corporations. In fact, every Cabinet-level department in Washington is in charge of handing out at least one kind of subsidy or special privilege. Most federal non-defense "discretionary spending" by Congress is for handouts.
Despite the fact that today's increasing levels of federal government spending are unsustainable, there is little evidence that Americans have the willingness to do anything about it. Any politician who'd even talk about significantly reining in unsustainable entitlement spending would be run out of town. Any politician telling the American people they must pay higher taxes to support handout spending, instead of concealing spending through deficits and running up the national debt and inflation, would also be run out of town. Can you imagine what the American people would do to a presidential candidate who'd declare, as James Madison did in a 1794 speech to the House of Representatives, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government"?
If we are to be able to avoid ultimate collapse, it's going to take a moral reawakening and renewed constitutional respect -- not by politicians but by the American people. The prospect of that happening may be whistlin' "Dixie."
No matter what type of health insurance you have, from subsidized health plans on the marketplace to high-end insurance plans, your access to doctor doesn't change in under ObamaCare. Your choice of doctors is still based on provider networks just like it is today. As a rule of thumb the smaller the network, the less doctor choices you have. However, competition on ObamaCare's marketplace may result in more aggressive marketing of plans meaning low priced plans may have wider networks moving forward into 2014 than they do today.
The ridiculously inept obamacare website cost 360 million dollars and that is only to date. There are about 320 million people in the U.S. What not just give everyone a million dollars and call it a day? The amount of money wasted by the Feds is stunning and we are only talking a website. Wait until the trillion dollar expense of obamacare starts adding to the debt. Hopefully I will have my assets stashed away when the crunch comes and a Greece like situation happens in the U.S.
From nobel prose wining economist Krugman:
A little while back I expressed a desire to see a poll of voters asking whether they knew about the plunging federal budget deficit. Just as a reminder, here’s what the CBO numbers for the recent past and projections for the near future look like:
Well, Hal Varian of Google got in touch with me, and said,”We can do that!” So he put together a Google Consumer Survey; it’s still ongoing — results here— but here’s what it looked like this morning:
I’m sure someone will quibble about the wording; and yes, the CBO numbers are as % of GDP rather than nominal values (but those would look the same). But I don’t think there’s any real question here: the public has no idea that the deficit has been falling like a stone. A solid majority of voters think it’s still going up, and hardly anyone knows that it’s going down.
Libertarianism in One Lesson..http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
As a fellow traveler, I'm locked and loaded awaitng the secret signal to start the fight. Err, what was that secret signal. I forgot.:oops::oops::eek::eek:
Annual budget deficits are the root of the problem but the national debt is the monster, and a direct quote from the Congressional Budget Office: "Debt held by the public as a share of GDP at the end of 2011 is at the highest level in the past 40 years"
Always remember: "Statistics are like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital"[/quote]
Libertarianism in One Lesson..http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
I didn't think you would read the platform, easier to lob uneducated comments.
I agree with:
The respect for individual rights
The right to keep arms
Sexual orientation and religious affiliation should not have any impact on the governments impact on individuals
Government should not subsidize any entity
Repeal of the income tax
Free markets for healthcare and education
Laws that exclude individuals or parties from politics
Abortion is best left up to the individual
Bigotry and discrimination is rejected and condemned
Limited government
(All in the platform)
Your website critiquing Libertarianism was enlightening and had some well written thoughts. It also was all opinion. I give you pure fact in the form of a published political party platform. There is a big difference between philosophical thought and political parties. Usually the two are not entirely similar because the actions of politics vary widely from the philosophy the politics are rooted in.
I again challenge you to enlighten yourself and read the platform. At least know about what you so adamantly are against. Maybe you hate guns or gays or abortion and that is your right. In general, the Libertarian party platform is a blend of both Democratic and Republican platforms. I don't agree with everything in it but the Libertarian platform is a lot closer to my way if thinking than the others. I wish the Green Party and the Libertarian Party both had seats in Congress just to mix it up little and bring new ideas, maybe force more compromise.
To lighten it up a little I thought this film clip was awesome:
The Moore and I have been around and around about this and their is no way that I'm "adamantly" opposed to some of what the so called platform advocates, after all, I'm a progressive Liberal.
Back in the 60's and 70's I had a few Libertarian friends in the anti war movement and others who just liked the broad idea, but now it seems that there are more interpretations of what the libertarian "platform" is than there are libertarians! What I have noticed is what appears be a selfish greedy all white socially inept bunch (branch if you will), in the mix and as far as I care they can all leave the union and set up shop in Texas.:D
Hmm, I believe a neighbor in New Mexico ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. That was after he liberated his best friend's wife and a bunch of his property !!
Hmm, I believe a neighbor in New Mexico ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. That was after he liberated his best friend's wife and a bunch of his property !!
That's how they roll...the yippies were basically Libertarians when you think about it....sell outs man
Well,we are one nation and use the same roads,poop in the same sewer lines,educate our kids in the same schools( or get subsides to pay some conmen to teach them Jesus had a pet Dinosaur in a religious school) It is a fact that our tax rate is lower than in Ike's day.Things are pretty good these days and if talk radio did not keep making well off white people think they are oppressed we would all be happier
It is futile to discuss or converse with Gerald because he is an angry, bitter, victimized PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUE.
Picture this for validation:
Gerald is standing on the bank, right at the edge of Niagra Falls, alongside his best buddy Obama. Obama his savior, his soul-mate! While smiling, Obama pushes him in, convincing Gerald he needs to take little dip for his health and to freshen up a bit. "You will feel better in that water Gerald", Obama shouts to him as he heads towards the falls.
As Gerald realizes he is going over the falls, to his impending death, he sees George W. Bush on the complete other side of the river, minding his own business and not evening knowing that Obama pushed Gerald into the water.
As Gerald plunges and begins tumbling down the waterfall, he begins murmuring, "Obama will save me!", along with vile and curse words lashing out, "It's Bushs' fault".
Here is a parody of the modern day progressive: believe in those who enslave and lie to you, and blame and become victim to those who are encouraging you to put on your life preserver and paddle your arms to safety ALL BY YOURSELF.
There ends the tragic story of the entitled who don't know they have had an anchor INTENTIONALLY PLACED around their heads and are heading over the cliff.
"But, he gave great speeches" they say as they tumble down the waterfall towards their demise.....
It is futile to discuss or converse with Gerald because he is an angry, bitter, victimized PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUE.
Picture this for validation:
Gerald is standing on the bank, right at the edge of Niagra Falls, alongside his best buddy Obama. Obama his savior, his soul-mate! While smiling, Obama pushes him in, convincing Gerald he needs to take little dip for his health and to freshen up a bit. "You will feel better in that water Gerald", Obama shouts to him as he heads towards the falls.
As Gerald realizes he is going over the falls, to his impending death, he sees George W. Bush on the complete other side of the river, minding his own business and not evening knowing that Obama pushed Gerald into the water.
As Gerald plunges and begins tumbling down the waterfall, he begins murmuring, "Obama will save me!", along with vile and curse words lashing out, "It's Bushs' fault".
Here is a parody of the modern day progressive: believe in those who enslave and lie to you, and blame and become victim to those who are encouraging you to put on your life preserver and paddle your arms to safety ALL BY YOURSELF.
There ends the tragic story of the entitled who don't know they have had an anchor INTENTIONALLY PLACED around their heads and are heading over the cliff.
"But, he gave great speeches" they say as they tumble down the waterfall towards their demise.....
It is futile to discuss or converse with Gerald because he is an angry, bitter, victimized PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGUE.
Well, you got all that wrong. Who is this Gerald person you refer to anyway. My fellow traveler, Jerry, is a dyed in the wool Commie, Pinko, Ratfink and we are proud of him. Might no always agree with him but I'm an argumentative old cur.
