No .... honest .... we didn’t fire knarf because he was old .... really.
Welcome to Fascism. The new tyrant is nudging open the door to see if there is any resistance inside.
I would do what most any Obama Administration bureaucrat does - lie.
Forcing businesses to keep thier doors open fully staffed and paid while the owner will eventually be making the same money as anyone of thier staff, brilliant! Now this is income equality
Tax avoidance is legal. This is bs.
Just the latest in the series of Intolerable Acts.
Are they also going to force businesses that are failing, because of Obamacare, to remain open?
I am reminded of the story, “Rumplestiltskin”, where a girl was told to spin straw into gold or be executed. Even the threat of death could not make her do the impossible.
If businesses cannot afford Obamacare mandates, no amount of bullying by the treasury can make them afford it.
What’s this”Program”called?”Create A Liar”??
This won’t stand. What about the Right-To-Work states?
Of course, with the SCOTUS being rather ... strange lately, I wonder.
These fools are sounding more and more like old communist ministers every day. They cannot dictate simple math. Their lust for power and control cannot make 2+2=5.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States Socialists of America…
TOTALITARIANCARE WITH GESTAPO IRS BACKING IT UP.
“That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want”
I don’t think the idea is to keep business from laying off people. The idea is to silence anyone that does under threat of IRS audit and lying on the form. In today’s news 2.5 million were laid off from Obamacare and we can’t find anyone to admit that is why.
“Treasury: Employers must “self-attest” that ObamaCare not behind staffing decisions – under penalty of perjury.”
What part of the Constitution can check TOTALITARIANCARE?
Check$ and Balance$?
$ocialism Is Legal Plunder
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
/Bastiat
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
United Socialists of America
you essay
you essay
you essay
FUBO
FUCONgress
FUUSSC
They are going to need it...
5.56mm
Loyalty oaths.
This is just plain tyranny.
As much as if a Democrat congress passed a 100% wealth tax, then Obama wavered all Democrats and those who swore a political oath of fealty to him, with penalties for disobedience.
It should be brought to the Supreme Court immediately, with an injunction against any wavers for anyone for any reason.
Importantly, since Marbury v. Madison (1810), the president cannot be compelled to act with a writ of mandamus; but the Supreme Court can most certainly forbid him from acting, if not him personally, then an injunction against anyone in his administration who acts.
Only once in the history of the Supreme Court has it acted as a criminal trial court. United States v. Shipp (1906).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shipp
But the Obama administration’s tyrannical acts are such that the Supreme Court may be forced to act. Since Obama disregards the law, congress, and the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court can order the arrest of Obama’s subordinates who carry out his tyrannies, and try them for contempt of the Supreme Court.
Personally I would love to see such people dragged before the court in irons.
Treasury: Employers must “self-attest” that ObamaCare not behind staffing decisions
The truthful employers’ responses will be something like this:
“We have let go three of our least productive employees in order to reduce our payroll under fifty persons, to counter the crushing burden that the ACA will soon place upon our business if we keep more than fifty employees.”
And just what happens if a business does fire employees because of Obamacare?
Conservatives are having a hard time arguing against the delay when they originally wanted to delay it.
But remember the administration passed this by arguing that it would cut costs, reduce deficits, improve healthcare and save thousands of lives and be extremely popular.
Now they are delaying it because ostensibly it allows time for business to adjust, but really because they know they’ll get hammered in the election because it will hurt individuals and businesses.
This proves not only did they push this through based on lies, but they realize it was all lies.
It also raises the question as to what their original motivation was for ramming this law through.
This is how this needs to be argued.