The above should read Obamacare' - I guess - I was too busy laughing.

LOL, LOL. Don't really know what it means, but it's a big number... - sm

so it must be funny.  ::sigh::

Hopefully wheres_my_job won't mind me reposting this:

Completey misreading this section....let me explain - wheres_my_job

Posted: Feb 1st, 2013 - 1:00 am In Reply to: Source - IRS

The government is giving examples of UNAFFORDABLE EMPLOYER PLANS. It's explaining that a sufficient employer plan that COMPLIES with the new health care law, cannot cost more than EIGHT PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME. I have capitalized below the relevant text:

"Under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, C, D, and E LACK AFFORDABLE COVERAGE for 2016 because their required contribution ($20,000) exceeds 8 percent of their household income ($7,200). 

- - - -

Of course you can't afford this - that's the whole point of the new law - to make things affordable. At or below 8 percent, apparently, from what you've shared. 

http://general.mtstars.com/336643.html

More here... - sm

So, once again, the $20,000 figure is for *illustrative* purposes regarding exemptions and penalties.

Example 2. Married employee with dependents. Taxpayers B and C are married, and file a joint return for 2016. B and C have two children, D and E. In November 2015, B is eligible to enroll in self-only coverage under a plan offered by B's employer for calendar year 2016 at a cost of $5,000 to B. C, D and E are eligible to enroll in family coverage under the same plan for 2016 at a cost of $20,000 to B. If B, C, D and E's household income is $90,000, then B has affordable coverage for 2016, because B's required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8% of B's household income ($7,200). If the required contribution for C, D and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage is $20,000, then C, D and E lack affordable coverage for 2016, because their required contribution ($20,000) exceeds 8% of their household income ($7,200).

http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/Newsletters/Americas/health-care-reform-bulletin/2013/PPACA-Guidance-Individual-Mandate-Minimum-Essential-Coverage-Family-Members-Subsidy-Eligibility

Obviously, the ACA is based on income. I - sm

that's just not correct - nm

And yet it's all over the right-wing-o-sphere. - sm

Like rats abandoning a sinking ship. - Not "like" rats. Just rats (sm)

"Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times - and is now editor of the Drudge Report."

You do know that Drudge does not write any of the articles - don't you - sm

Funny. Most liberals have no clue what Drudge is. - (they only know what MSNBC tells them to know)

You do know that Drudge editors have built up - an impressive reputation for

being a yellow rag, and that editors who select what does and does not appear there are responsible for content, don't you?  Also, Drudge is not only a collection of links.  It frequently boasts about its "exclusive" stories based on "tips" that have failed to pass muster when evaluated and subjected to even the most basic of journalism standards and have been found to be northing more than bogus RW punditry.  (Link #1).  This is not surprising since their viewpoints are considered to be conservative (Links 2,3,and 4)....so much so there have been thorougly organized and researched studies on their bias.  Brill's Content reviewed 51 Drudge "exclusives" published between January and September of 1998 and found that only 61% of them were real exclusives, 32% were false, and another 32% were of questionable accuracy.  

Some of their more salacious false reporting has been fairly high-profile:  

1)  The accusation that Sidney Blumenthal (a Clinton WH assistant) was hiding a sinister dark side that included wife beating.  That one promptly generated a lawsuit causing Drudge to retract the story and apologize.  Blumenthal was forced to drop the action since he could not compete against the unlimited funds from political supporters who USE A TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATION,"  the Individual Rights Foundation, who paid Drudge legal fees.  At one point, a federal judge observed that, Drudge "is not a reporter, a journalist, or a newsgatherer. He is, as he admits himself, simply a purveyor of gossip."  The opinion can be accessed in Link 5.  

Some of their more swarmy pieces, since debunked, have included the John Kerry intern "scandal," the Bill Clinton illegitimate child hurl, attacks on CNN for "heckling" GOP Senators, claims that Oprah would be doing a Sarah Palin interview, and the hoax involving false reports of a McCain campaign aide having been attacked and mutilated.  It turned out that the Ashley Todd actually attacked and mutilated herself by carving a "B" on her face and trying to blame Obama supporters.  Drudge decided to go with the story anyway, despite the face that Todd had a history of generating a similar hoax. Remember?

While that might be good enough for some to qualify as a perfectly reliable media outlet, others might consider their record to merit a big fat "F" grade surrounded by multiple circles and underscores for emphasis.     

Page 146 of 

http://books.google.com/books?id=Wo8IY5oMpX4C&pg=PA131&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/obama-video-pastor-hurricane-katrina

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-pounce-obama-optimal-comment-article-1.1187424

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/myth-obama-phone/story?id=17507339#.UaNvUtK1HXJ

http://epic.org/free_speech/blumenthal_v_drudge.html

There goes the libs don't know anything about Drudge theory. - Poof! nm

No, that's not true. Purposely misleading - sm

Didn't say they edited content of other news stories. - sm

Funny when Bush was in office and bad was coming out - about him Drudge was a source

Where's the evidence of this? - sm

Got any sources to back up your claim or just doing a - drive by

CNS and readers cannot distinguish between reality - and hypotheticals

Have any fact to back that up, besides factcheck - which is anything but a fact

No, it certainly is not. I think that has been well proven. - Libs ignore.

Um, there are numerous facts backing that up in the - link provided in the OP. nm

I don't believe you or your right-wing "source." - sm

Mark Levin is a handsome man. Doesn't matter whether he is - right or left - He is right on

I was talking about what he is on the INSIDE. - sm

Yeah, I was talking about what's on the inside too - He has a good soul and that makes him handsome

Yeah, guess asking the media to stop censoring our news it really hateful - Pffft

I agree. They should be concentrating on the - sm

I agree democrats should get a free pass and never be held - accountable - sm