colourwheel

It is if the "only" reason why one is working a full time job is for the sole purpose of healthcare benefits and not because they need the income.... Remember these are "mostly" spouses who don't necessarily take up a job for the income but for strictly just the healthcare benefits. Their significant other is presumably the bread winner... No one is stupid enough to just quit their job if they have no other means of income. Unemployment benefits are only given to those who are laid off, not to those who willingly quit their jobs.....

If your not going to take the time to look over the data I hardly see a reason to expect me to re-read the entire thing I posted just for you to point out something you can read yourself. I honestly don't remember which pages they are located on... It's good because people won't need to work anymore specifically just to keep a job that provides them health insurance. It use to be about 2 million people who work in the lower income bracket worked specifically to just get health care benefits provided by an employer. These people who don't necessarily need to work just for the income can just quit the job where as they have other means of income through a spouse or else where. Meaning they only need to work just a part time or even quit their current job. This gives these people more time to spend with family, attend college, or even spend time to start their own business.... These people wouldn't just stop working all together if they didn't have some sort of income to supplement their family...

If you really want to get specific into the actual raw data and info you only need to look over the source any editorial or media outlet relies on to make your own conclusion. Don't take my word for anything just try to understand the info yourself.... http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-gop-job-losses Why would it be horrible not needing to work as much or hold two jobs to be able to afford health insurance if your in the lower income bracket? I mean this seems to be a good thing to me, especially to those who hold onto a job specifically just to get healthcare benefits. Meaning because of the new law some people won't actually need the extra job or hours working anymore and could spend the time either with family or seek higher education or even pursue their own business.....

@HeyYou I will have to just strongly disagree with you. The discredit and obstruction is not even equivalent coming from both sides. Although there has always been historically resistances from the political opposition when ever there is either a Democrat or Republican president, you can't seriously think there being equal obstruction of government. About one third of the Republicans in congressional office don't even believe in government.

Then what do you think that says about the right wing media?

Recently The Right wing media has gone on a frenzy about the new CBO report about The Affordable care Act and how it will "presumably" kill jobs. All you will hear from the these media sources is how The ACA will cause 2 million to 2.5 million jobs being lost over the next seven-year period according to the CBO report. What is funny is actually the CBO report is stating that people won't be losing their jobs but people will actually be purposely dropping out of the job force due to not needing to work as much or needing to working two jobs. This is due to the fact people won't need to depend on being locked into working a job just for the sole purpose of needing health insurance. From what I have gathered the reason why this will cause employers needing to pay their employees a little more is just an incentive to keep them from wanting to leave. "Also, the CBO reduced its estimate of the net cost of the ACA by $9 billion through 2024, in part because of the number of states that have refused to implement the law's Medicaid expansions. And the CBO still maintains that, over the 10-year window of its analysis, the ACA will reduce the federal deficit. In fact, that trend is expected to increase in subsequent years, with the ACA leading to greater deficit reduction." "Finally, according to the CBO report, "On balance, the CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years ... the net increase in demand for goods and services will in turn boost the demand for labor over the next few years." In everyday language, that means the ACA will boost the economy and, in turn, create jobs." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-semro/affordable-care-act-a-job_b_4741300.html?utm_hp_ref=politics Why would anyone be so upset at this?

@Xplode441 You do have a point there is an assimilation process in immigration, but I don't really think the commercial was about immigration. One has to admit that the world is much different today than it was last century. The world is becoming more globalized. For America to keep up with the rest of the world our nation should encourage the use of multi-languages and probably throw aside this paradigm of English being the Universal language of the world.

You can "propose" anything all you want TRoaches but hardly see why one would actually propose something like this when you seem to be one who is so outraged by a school restricting what someone can wear just for one single day of the year..... I wasn't advocating that such a thing happen. Seems like you were trying to offer a definitive proposal to me. Regardless if you were "trying" to present it as an analogous situation. The more relevant question: Why was the US flag censored at a US school? Why is it considered antagonistic to wear a US flag in the US? This is the aspect of this that nobody has given any explanation for. I have only heard justifications of the school's right to censor an image, but have heard NO justification for why that image would need to be censored. The closest that anyone has come is to simply say that it was "antagonistic" to wear that flag on that day. Why would the US flag ever be antagonistic to Americans? The answer is that the people who were antagonized likely do not consider themselves to be Americans. They consider themselves to be Mexicans who are living in a region of North America that was, according to Mexican Nationalist ideology, is illegitimately claimed by the US but legitimately should be controlled by Mexico. No one knows all the facts about this case but the actual people involved. No one on this forum can give a full explanation about what really went on. You are throwing accusations about "why" and injecting them into this story as some sort of concluding "fact" when the only knowledge the reader has is that of what one can find from web searching and reading articles. Despite the reason why one thinks something was done and for what reason, their constitution grants public school children only limited First Amendment rights when they enter the schoolhouse gates. The school may restrict a student's speech, to prevent unruly disruptions. So the school was within its right to ban the shirts for just that single day. Furthermore, the lower court tossed out the students' lawsuit in December 2011, ruling that school administrators have wide legal latitude to ensure the safety and effective operation of their campuses and a "perceived threat" of violence vindicated the principal's decision. If there was a U.S. National flag being flown on school grounds during Cinco de Mayo day, you have already totally debunked this "theory" that anyone was actually being specifically "offended" by the U.S. National Flag.

You can "propose" anything all you want TRoaches but hardly see why one would actually propose something like this when you seem to be one who is so outraged by a school restricting what someone can wear just for one single day of the year..... To be honest I think most LGBT t-shirts look dreadful but this doesn't mean I don't support LGBT rights... I for one wouldn't wear a cheap rainbow t-shirt normally day to day unless I was just sitting at home in my underwear doing laundry and it was the only thing clean I had left to wear... :laugh: Other than at some LGBT rights rally, most people I know who are gay or lesbian don't normally decide to wear a cheap t-shirt with a rainbow on it for the sole purpose to invoke violence when they go out in public..... One thing I find ironic is this thread was originally started about how there was so many stories about the American flag being ban because of people being "offended" by it, when there is really only "one" story about banning U.S. flag T-shirts and only for Cinco de Mayo day at some high school in California. A story which a school decided to ban U.S. flag t-shirts for "only" one day and not "specifically" because people were actually being "offended" by the U.S. flag but because a few students decided to stir up trouble wearing flag T-shirts even after being warned before hand by the school administration in preventing the likelihood of invoking violence on school grounds on Cinco de Mayo day. There is also no town or township that has proposed laws to ban the U.S. Flag "specifically" because it "offends" people. All laws in townships are not exclusive to just the American flag being flown and most of the ordinances in towns dealing with restricting flags in general being flown are due to safety reasons. Which no ordnance I have found that specifically bans the U.S. Flag because it "offends" people. I guess a genuine question could be asked why the outrage about some high school that decided to ban U.S. flag t-shirts for one specific day? It is not as if this really personally effects anyone other than students that attend this school, which if I am not mistaken have limited rights to begin with the moment they set foot on school grounds. It would seem more like people are really just offended by a school deciding to ban American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo day and not really having anything to do with anyone "actually" being "offended" by the American Flag. Are people really upset by just this one incident that was a pretty rational decision made by the school administration? I mean seems this high school has a bigger issue to worry about than just three students who consciously chose to try to invoke gang violence on Cinco de Mayo day at this high school. After reading this entire thread over again, maybe the real issue is about cultural intolerance in America.

I don't necessarily think it was a ludicrous decision, when it comes to protecting their students from "preventable" violence on school grounds. If you think students in schools shouldn't have their constitutional rights restricted, maybe high school students across the nation should even be able to carry fire arms into school since the 2nd amendment protects them of this right... unless you begin to realize this would probably cause more violence in schools..... The school did what was in their right to limit what people wear on Cinco de Mayo day, despite how one might think it being unpatriotic.

If this isn't an accusation being injected into a story, it just must be my imagination.... There is nothing in your example that is inaccurate or untrue. So you know for fact this was done to punish the victims of the attacks by restricting their expression as a method of protecting them? Without any real details about the story regarding any kind of ill intentions, this is quite a claim to make.... Btw... You have no ground in stating what anyone believes in no more than one can claim what you believe in.

An example below... If this isn't an accusation being injected into a story, it just must be my imagination.... Now, let us apply your logic to another issue and see how this attitude jives with you...... I think your missing the point there doesn't even need to be logical reason when a school decides what is acceptable and what is not when students show up on school grounds "knowing" they have limited rights. Doesn't matter how much you try to evade with ridiculous hypothetical examples, doesn't change the fact the school was doing what they thought was in the best interests to protect their students.

The point I am trying to make is you have no proof either of the situation or circumstances of the story. There is zero evidence about anything when your the one who has injected more accusations about the story than any other poster with in this thread. Regardless of what I think or of what you think the school is in its right to do what ever they want when conducting safety of their students. Doesn't matter how much you claim they have 1st amendment rights, as students of that school their rights are limited the moment they step on school grounds. If the school wanted they could ban American Flag t-shirts all year round and the only thing one can do is just mope around and sigh about how their freedoms are taken away from them....

@TRoaches http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/09-13-2012/5-teens-charged-gang-activity-after-thefts-fayette-co-high

Wouldn't shock me... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/08/south-carolina-school-says-flag-shirt-represents-gang-affiliation/

Why are you so sure in "thinking" these students were not in a gang as well? Who knows, these students who were trying to stir up trouble with others could have been in a gang as well. Just because they are wearing American flag T-shirts your patriotism shrouds your judgement on the actual situation? You automatically assume the people who wear American flags to school are just innocent who cause no trouble to society who's Patriotism trumps their actual actions? I will just have to point out you know no better about the actual situation within this school no more than any of the readers here on this forum unless they actually attending or are involved with the situation. For all we know The three students who showed up wearing American flag T-shirts use the American flag as their gang symbol.... But it must be Anti-American to not side in defense of a street gang who shrouds themselves in the american flag who purposely try to invoke gang violence...

I honestly didn't think at 1st she existed either.... Which was quite a shock when I found these articles. I still think it's crazy this women would rather go uncovered than to even explore her option under the new healthcare law.... One can only imagine what will happen to this couple when eventually one of them runs into severe health problem....

But you see you are quiet wrong here.... The students have limited rights on school grounds. seems you don't quite follow this... "Their constitution grants public school children only limited First Amendment rights when they enter the schoolhouse gates." "A school may restrict a student's speech, to prevent unruly disruptions." "the school was within its right to ban the shirts for just that single day." Whether you thinks this ruling was right or wrong is another story....

@TRoaches If any student male or female was "warned" they were going to be raped if they showed up wearing an American flag T-shirt, I doubt they would be so patriotic they would just throw caution in the wind because they must uphold their 1st amendment rights.... :laugh: Don't know anyone I have ever met who welcomes being raped regardless what they wear.... :facepalm: Seems to me the topic has side stepped form flags being ban "specifically" because people are "offended" by them. Which I have yet to see anyone give an actual example of "exclusively banning" just because of someone being offended....

Regardless if her old plan worked for her or not, you really think it's a rational decision for her and her husband to completely go uncovered at their age? More so evading their options under the new law which the "Daily Kos" found better plans which would have saved her and her husband more money with extended coverage for more than just a few visits to a doctor a year which would have been subsidized anyways... To my understanding, this couple is basically consciously choosing to not have health insurance at all if they can't keep their old plan, regardless if they could find a better plan under the new healthcare law.

If any group of students were attacking any other group of students, for any reason whatsoever, I would expel those students. If a kid born in Mexico decided to wear a shirt with a Mexican flag on US independence day and any of the other students decided to attack him for wearing that shirt I would expel those violent students. I would not blame the student who was attacked for "provoking" the other students, and I would not demand that he invert his shirt to prevent offending the other students. I am sure anyone would be expelled for violently attacking someone else on school grounds but that's beyond the point... Who do you think will be blamed if someone gets seriously injured or even looking to the extreme possibility of someone being killed when you "know" a situation on campus can be avoided when you're the one liable for your students? If you ask me the entire administration will be blamed and this story wouldn't be about banning flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo day. It would probably be a story about an administrations failure to prevent violence on campus after being fair warned of the potential risks without taking appropriate action...

I am not disagreeing with the fact people are being punished for wearing the American flag on Cinco de Mayo day because they actually are. The thing I am disagreeing with is the issue of anyone getting offended "specifically" at the US national flag or justifying this as the reason of banning. Let me remind you these students were also aware that people wearing flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo day would cause trouble on campus leading to possible violence... I am sure if you were in charge of the students on this campus and were liable for their well being you would probably do the same thing.

@TRoaches If you're wanting to get "specific" about the issue here there is no mention of anyone getting offended "specifically" at the US national flag or justifying why this would be the reason of banning. There is no case I have found, even web searching that concludes banning a flag because "it offends people"...

One only needs to do more research than just reading one article about a story... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/17/california-school-ban-us-flag-heads-appeals/ "The school’s argument during the 2010 matter was that racial tensions and gang problems plagued the student body at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, located 20 miles outside of San Jose, The Associated Press reported. So when administrators caught wind that some of the altercations experienced on Cinco de Mayo day may have been rooted in the wearing of U.S. flag shirts by three students, their reaction was quick." I have to argue this is still not an example of people being offended "specifically" at the US national flag. But more so the outrage of a few students using the American flag to purposely provoke gang violence on Cinco de Mayo day. If the situation was where as a group of students at this school were using anything to invoke gang violence on any national holiday the results would probably conclude the same way..

Anyone who watched the Sate of the Union Address this year will know by now there is going to be at least one Response from an oppositional political party. This year was no different where as the Republican party had over 3 responses one of which was spoken in Spanish. The only response I listened to was the "Official" Republican response which was addressed by Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Regardless of the substance-less address given by Rodgers, the one thing that stood out the most was her story about "Bette in Spokane". A story about a woman who was kicked off her old insurance plan due to the new health care law only to find she would have to pay $700 more a month to continue being insured. I personally found this an astonishing claim where as a person being kicked off their old plans only to pay $8,400 more a year due to the ACA law if they wished to continue to insure them self. The description of Bette’s plight, along with the fact that Rodgers used only the woman’s first name in the televised address, sparked speculation.... Also Rodgers’ provided no explanation on what steps were taken to verify the figures. So... reporters caught up with Bette, seems the premium that Rodgers cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was based on just one of the pricier options.... http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-bette-20140130,0,1703947.story#axzz2sTs2iIlS http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jan/30/bette-in-spokane-cited-in-mcmorris-rodgers-speech/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/30/1273347/-Where-is-Cathy-McMorris-Rodgers-ObamaCare-victim-Bette-in-Spokane-UPDATE-X3-Bette-SPEAKS# Bette said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.” Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage,"..... After reading these articles makes one wonder if this is what most Americans would do who are so strongly against the ACA. Ultimately making the conscious decision to purposely not to insure themselves because of ideological reasons despite the rational need to be insured for a couple of their age.... Would be interesting to see what others think....