FCC thread is so good, let's try this one on for size

[kent]

So, beside the FCC intrusion, employers will be required to swear to the IRS?  Wow!  It just keeps getting deeper.  Naw, the government isn't really trying to gain even more control.

Move along people, nothing to see or be concerned about  Just bury your head in the sand and pretend all is well.....given I haven't heard a peep on any of the "network" news stations, this is probably just another big lie I'm providing for entertainment! 

lastresistance.com/4722/employers-required-swear-firings-due-obamacare/

In the newest business-crippling injustice from the Obamacare debacle, new requirements are being put in place dictating that employers will have to swear to the IRS that they aren’t firing employees because of Obamacare.

That’s right. If an employer wants to get into that sweet spot of employee numbers (50-99) to keep his Obamacare costs down, he will have to swear that any firings were not motivated by Obamacare. That means two things for the Obama administration’s PR wizards.

First, some companies that want to fire employees to save themselves from Obamacare cost increases will retain those employees because managers can’t conscience lying about layoff motivations. I would imagine this will happen the vast minority of the time.

I think the second option is much more likely: companies will fire the required number of employees and just lie about it. They will come up with plausible sounding motivations having nothing to do with Obamacare to save themselves a little money.

Read more at lastresistance.com/4722/employers-required-swear-firings-due-obamacare/#CT7ETmd3JpvRF9BA.99

pamelageller.com/2014/02/obamas-stasi-businesses-required-certify-irs-penalty-perjury-staff-reductions-due-obamacare.html/

Firms and businesses are going to be required to certify to the IRS — under penalty of perjury — that Obamacare was not the reason for any layoffs and staffing decisions. How can any firm sign such a document when their costs are going to skyrocket under Obamacare? In order to stay in business, cuts will have to be made. This is dictatorial. Scary.

Oh what the hell, one more link

joeforamerica.com/2014/02/companies-must-swear-irs-obamacare-factor-layoffs/

Turns out the latest flaunting of the Separation of Powers is another politically motivated scam to make ObamaCare stats look better for the legacy of Barack Obama. This you’ll find incredible – yet not be surprised about: The administration is MANDATING that businesses who fire employees to get under the 50 employee threshold not give the IRS any information that ObamaCare was a consideration..

Follow Joe For America on Facebook!

… Oh yeah, it’s just a big coincidence.

Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? You betcha’! Obama administration officials have announced the new exemption (18th Executive order rewriting ACA legislation) for medium-sized employers comes with quite a caveat: Business owners who fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law will be forbidden by IRS statute from claiming that it was in fact the onerous and ever-failing Affordable Care Act that played any role in the decision.

Obama officials made it painfully clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees which avoid the huge fines. Thing is, how will they know what these employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Who cares, as long as they don’t blame Obama.

Read more at joeforamerica.com/2014/02/companies-must-swear-irs-obamacare-factor-layoffs/#t4jA7DMqOLI5WkMD.99

[djAdvocate]

doesn't pass the sniff test for me.  i don't see any actual companies referenced above.  find me one company that had to sign this oath, and i will start paying attention.

[billisonboard]

Feb 21, 2014 19:34:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

doesn't pass the sniff test for me.  i don't see any actual companies referenced above.  find me one company that had to sign this oath, and i will start paying attention.

But look at all them there links.

[grits]

I don't think that it is actually legal for them to require such an oath. The problem is the government can make your life hell, and bankrupt you while you fight them in court.

[zibazinski]

Just ask GIBSON.

[workpublic]

and howard stern.

on another note i was required to sign an oath to defend and uphold the constitution of the state of NY and the federal constitution this week for my new job at a SUNY school.

does that mean i can arrest the NYS legislature and the governor, silver and the majority leader(the "three men in a room" that really govern the state)? then go down to DC and do they same?

[zibazinski]

Funny how NONE of the mainstream media even mentioned this, isn't it?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2014 15:14:26 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Funny how NONE of the mainstream media even mentioned this, isn't it?

given that there is no evidence that it is true, no, it is not funny at all.

if you want a media that reports on gossip, try the Inquirer.

[Sum Dum Gai]

DJ, I know you're not implying that lastresistance.com and joeforamerica.com are unstrustworthy sources??  Say it ain't so bro, you'll shatter my whole worldview.  

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2014 18:40:40 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

DJ, I know you're not implying that lastresistance.com and joeforamerica.com are unstrustworthy sources??  Say it ain't so bro, you'll shatter my whole worldview.  

LOL!  i feel like there is no winning with the argument that i am making, most of the time.  in an era where journalism is a dirty word, what possible appeal can i make to journalistic integrity?  Beck and Hannity just laugh at journalistic integrity.  and i am guessing, without anything to substantiate it, that these two bloggers are about 3-4 steps further down the food chain from Beck and Hannity, in the netherlands occupied by LittleGreenFootballs, NewsBusters, BreitBart, and other press-loathers.

[Lizard King]

It's pretty standard that if you're applying for welfare from the government that you attest you didn't finagle the facts on your application. You can't hide assets from the government so as to appear to qualify for food stamps for example - that's fraud, and you go to jail for that stuff.

What the IRS is doing here is saying that, if you want to apply for the exemption, you have to show you haven't engineered the circumstances to qualify for the exemption. Admittedly, I don't think the IRS has the authority to exempt swathes of people from the application of the law of the land, but they argue that they do.

I don't doubt that there's a political upside for the administration in doing it, but it would be both extremely remiss and quite out of step with all other individual and corporate welfare programs not to include this basic fraud-prevention measure.