Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on February 04, 2014, 10:23:46 AM
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101352868
A historically high number of people will be locked out of the workforce by 2021, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
President Barack Obama's signature health-care law will contribute to this phenomenon, the CBO said, citing new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger-than-expected reduction in working hours—eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021.
In 2011, the CBO estimated the law would cause a reduction of about 800,000 full-time equivalent workers.
"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive," said the report.
"The reduction in CBO's projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024," it added.
The deficit will decline to $478 billion in fiscal 2015, any reductions will be short-lived. It will start to grow thereafter as the economy continues to struggle with an unemployment rate that fails to fall below 6 percent until late 2016.
Additionally, the CBO sharply cut its projections of U.S. GDP growth in 2015 by a full percentage point to 3.4 percent, where it also stays for 2016, down nearly a full point from the CBO's previous estimates.
-
That deficit will continue to drop in 2015, but will then begin to quickly rise, once again topping $1 trillion in 2022.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/#ixzz2sNZJP4d3
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
HAHAHAHA!!
So much for libtard claim that crapcare doesn't affect the job market and that it was going to cut the deficit.
-
We are fucked
-
none of those democrat supporters want to touch this one?
Kore, straw, lurker, blacken, 240???
-
bump
-
F obama
-
HEHEHEHE!!
Before the retards on this board try to come up with ways to downplay the severity of this effect by crapcare, let me post the talking point those idiots are bound to repeat.
"These numbers represent people who CHOOSE to work less hours."
That is BS.
Why?
First, Pelosi, the mouth piece of the dumocratic party in the House, stated that crapcare would CREATE 4 MILLION JOBS. CREATE!! Not cut hours. Not result in 2.5 million less workers. IT WOULD CREATE MORE JOBS. That was the assertion by dumocrats.
Second, NOT all of those people will be CHOOSING to work less hours. There are going to be people who WILL BE FORCED out of the workplace and we will hear those stories if that crap legislation is not repealed.
Another fact that libtards should consider as proof that government should not be trusted with health care and that even single payer is a terrible idea, is that the CBO keeps coming back with higher and higher numbers for the cost to implement the government's plan. They already stated a year ago that crapcare would cost more than twice they originally stated. Now, triple the number of people of what they originally predicted will be out of the workplace. DEFICIT WILL NOT BE REDUCED. Every "positive" claim made by supporters of that law HAS TURNED OUT TO BE FALSE. Higher costs and terrible for the economy. IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE. Yet, the libtards want single payer. HEHEHEHEHEH! MORONS!
-
Only an idiot ever believed thugcare would work.
-
"Site" (the) CBO?
It'd probably be worth it for you to familiarize yourself with "homophones" and "homonyms" if you want to be taken seriously by people who are more educated than you.
And no, those terms have nothing to do with gay male prostitutes in Peru. ;D
-
LMFAO!
-
"Site" (the) CBO?
It'd probably be worth it for you to familiarize yourself with "homophones" and "homonyms" if you want to be taken seriously by people who are more educated than you.
And no, those terms have nothing to do with gay male prostitutes in Peru. ;D
Oh. Do you really think I care if you or anyone here "takes me seriously"? HEHEHEHEHE!! You are a moron.
The faggoty English professor concerns himself with my poor grammar and spelling. The poor bastard deflects since he can't defend crapcare.
It's tu bad my ingles is bery, bery bad. Sory, pul smoker.
-
And no, those terms have nothing to do with gay male prostitutes in Peru. ;D
Watch out for that syphilis, Liberace.
-
Oh. Do you really think I care if you or anyone here "takes me seriously"? HEHEHEHEHE!! You are a moron.
The faggoty English professor is offended by my poor grammar and spelling. The poor bastard deflects since he can't defend crapcare.
It's tu bad my ingles is bery, bery bad. Sory, pul smoker.
So in your world it takes an English professor (I say, old chap, your vocab seems right pear shaped) to know the difference between "site" and "cite" (not to mention "sight")? Well holy short-bus, that seems consistent from the idiot who couldn't see the contradiction between free will and god's supposed omniscience. (Translation: Dario, that you are at least kinda dumb is beyond doubt.)
Oh, you think I'm deflecting? Well, allow me to retort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/?hpid=z1)
The Fact Checker
The Truth Behind The Rhetoric
No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs
The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs. (Note the sections in bold face.)
“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”
The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,” though it notes the data may be murky because the employer mandate was delayed until 2015.
BTW, I'm not a homo but I am wondering if you always assume that anyone who's obviously smarter than you is gay. Cuz if so, that'd be a sad world to live in and I'd sincerely pity you...more than I already do, of course.
-
I'm from the government and we're here to give you healthcare.......
-
So in your world it takes an English professor
Let me be clear with you, nitwit.
I don't care what your opinion is of me. At this point I am making fun of you and all the limp wristed fags like you who either voted or support Obama.
I am not trying to be accepted or "taken serious" by you, nor trying to change your mind. You are an idiot. You are not able to perceive the consequences of the political ideology that you support, so therefore YOU ARE A MORON. No amount of "education", spelling or grammar will be enough to make an idiot like you see the light. I know that. That is why since I began posting on this board I have just been pointing out everything that is wrong with liberalism and making fun of delusional idiots like you.
Don't bother waiting for another response from me because I only address idiots like you maybe two or three times and then I move on.
-
Let me be clear with you, nitwit.
I don't care what your opinion is of me. At this point I am making fun of you and all the limp wristed fags like you who either voted or support Obama.
I am not trying to be accepted or "taken serious" by you, nor trying to change your mind. You are an idiot. You are not able to perceive the consequences of the political ideology that you support, so therefore YOU ARE A MORON. No amount of "education", spelling or grammar will be enough to make an idiot like you see the light. I know that. That is why since I began posting on this board I have just been pointing out everything that is wrong with liberalism and making fun of delusional idiots like you.
Don't bother waiting for another response from me because I only address idiots like you maybe two or three times and then I move on.
I'd buy you a beer but its the internet...great post.
-
;D
Let me be clear with you, nitwit.
I don't care what your opinion is of me. At this point I am making fun of you and all the limp wristed fags like you who either voted or support Obama.
I am not trying to be accepted or "taken serious" by you, nor trying to change your mind. You are an idiot. You are not able to perceive the consequences of the political ideology that you support, so therefore YOU ARE A MORON. No amount of "education", spelling or grammar will be enough to make an idiot like you see the light. I know that. That is why since I began posting on this board I have just been pointing out everything that is wrong with liberalism and making fun of delusional idiots like you.
Don't bother waiting for another response from me because I only address idiots like you maybe two or three times and then I move on.
-
House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained in a Wednesday hearing with CBO director Steven Elmendorf that the health care reform law wouldn't cost the U.S. economy more than 2 million jobs, as many of his colleagues alleged, but that Americans would choose to work less.
-
House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) explained in a Wednesday hearing with CBO director Steven Elmendorf that the health care reform law wouldn't cost the U.S. economy more than 2 million jobs, as many of his colleagues alleged, but that Americans would choose to work less.
And that is a good thing?
-
love
of course having the corny communist government will deliver anything at 10x the normal cost
and senators wont have to partake liek reid!
creating a class system euro socialists love
and fucking up cheap commodified health care and any other product for the rest of us
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/05/cbo_director_obamacare_creates_a_disincentive_for_people_to_work.html
CBO Director: Obamacare "Creates A Disincentive For People To Work"
REP. PAUL RYAN: Just to understand this, it is not that employers are laying people off, but that people aren't working in the work force, aren't supply labor to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, and as a result work force participation rate, less labor supply lowers economic growth.
DOUG ELMENDORF, CBO: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
-
So in your world it takes an English professor (I say, old chap, your vocab seems right pear shaped) to know the difference between "site" and "cite" (not to mention "sight")? Well holy short-bus, that seems consistent from the idiot who couldn't see the contradiction between free will and god's supposed omniscience. (Translation: Dario, that you are at least kinda dumb is beyond doubt.)
Oh, you think I'm deflecting? Well, allow me to retort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/?hpid=z1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/?hpid=z1)
The Fact Checker
The Truth Behind The Rhetoric
No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs
The CBO, in its sober fashion, virtually screams that this is not about jobs. (Note the sections in bold face.)
“The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”
The CBO did look at the effect on demand for labor (i.e., jobs) but said the effects are mostly on the margins or are not measurable. In fact, in contrast to a common GOP talking point, the CBO declares that “there is no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA,” though it notes the data may be murky because the employer mandate was delayed until 2015.
BTW, I'm not a homo but I am wondering if you always assume that anyone who's obviously smarter than you is gay. Cuz if so, that'd be a sad world to live in and I'd sincerely pity you...more than I already do, of course.
this is why I didn't even bother to post on this thread
the spin on this story was ridiculous yesterday with the even members of Congress flat out lying about what this report said
-
this is why I didn't even bother to post on this thread
the spin on this story was ridiculous yesterday with the even members of Congress flat out lying about what this report said
LMFAO - yeah its all spin rrrriiiggghhhttttttt
Typical
-
LMFAO - yeah its all spin rrrriiiggghhhttttttt
Typical
HEHEHEHEH!!
Those poor libtards were in claiming that crapcare would create jobs, cut the deficit, people would keep their doctors, their insurance plans, and it would save families $2500 a year in premiums.
ALL of those claims have been PROVEN FALSE.
Yet, it is all spin by the right.
Oh, and it is all FOX's fault.
-
this is why I didn't even bother to post on this thread
the spin on this story was ridiculous yesterday with the even members of Congress flat out lying about what this report said
So, its your position that the CBO is lying about Obamacare, or you're dismissing the conclusions reached by the CBO because the Wapo fact checker dazzled you with a few run on sentences?
-
So, its your position that the CBO is lying about Obamacare, or you're dismissing the conclusions reached by the CBO because the Wapo fact checker dazzled you with a few run on sentences?
Not only the WaPo fact checker, sorry.
Straw is right, though: Trying to reason with most conservatives is futile.
-
Not only the WaPo fact checker, sorry.
Straw is right, though: Trying to reason with most conservatives is futile.
thats b/c most conservatives use numbers, facts and evidence to back up their views and liberals use emotion...
-
Fact of the matter is the CBO numbers show that obamacare will result in a net drag on the economy.
Now you can say I feel that people having the ability to retire early or not work is a good thing but realize that someone has to support them and the services they will use...
shit isnt free
-
only a fucking moron would argue that giving people less incentive to work and more ppl on the govt tit is a good thing!!!
-
only a fucking moron would argue that giving people less incentive to work and more ppl on the govt tit is a good thing!!!
People in general, yes I agree.
But I could see where it might be a good idea to get some people to work less so that other people could work more.
Like giving some high-earning folks incentives to take early retirements to make room for more younger workers.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing this idea. I'm just bringing it up to point out that it's not as clear cut as you might think at first blush.
-
People in general, yes I agree.
But I could see where it might be a good idea to get some people to work less so that other people could work more.
Like giving some high-earning folks incentives to take early retirements to make room for more younger workers.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing this idea. I'm just bringing it up to point out that it's not as clear cut as you might think at first blush.
thats not the people who are going to be taken out of the workforce even by the article you posted. Its going to be those people who qualify for subsidies when making less.
If they make more they will not qualify for subsidies and may end up in that area where they make to much for subsidies yet not enough to cover what they would have if they worked less and got subsidies.
SO THEY WILL WORK LESS, TAKE FROM OTHERS AND IDIOT DEMOCRAT SUPPORTERS WILL CHEER LIKE IS A FUCKING GOOD THING!!!
If you can leave the work force and not be a drag on the economy by sucking on the govt tit all the power to you. The govt should not be creating more fucking govt hand outs and giving people less incentive to work...PERIOD
-
thats not the people who are going to be taken out of the workforce even by the article you posted. Its going to be those people who qualify for subsidies when making less.
If they make more they will not qualify for subsidies and may end up in that area where they make to much for subsidies yet not enough to cover what they would have if they worked less and got subsidies.
SO THEY WILL WORK LESS, TAKE FROM OTHERS AND IDIOT DEMOCRAT SUPPORTERS WILL CHEER LIKE IS A FUCKING GOOD THING!!!
If you can leave the work force and not be a drag on the economy by sucking on the govt tit all the power to you. The govt should not be creating more fucking govt hand outs and giving people less incentive to work...PERIOD
What do you want me to do, read the CBO's report? And miss out on reading and posting here? Ninja, please!
-
What do you want me to do, read the CBO's report? And miss out on reading and posting here? Ninja, please!
A start would be to not try give a retort in defense of this fucking idiocy. To call it out and call out the idiots who support it and continue to support it.
-
A start would be to not try give a retort in defense of this fucking idiocy. To call it out and call out the idiots who support it and continue to support it.
Yeah, I'd agree with your first sentence but that would mean not messing with that silly twat Dario, so that's out. ;D
-
Yeah, I'd agree with your first sentence but that would mean not messing with that silly twat Dario, so that's out. ;D
and the second sentence about calling out people who support it and continue to support it?
-
and the second sentence about calling out people who support it and continue to support it?
Can't agree to that at this time; Personally, to feel good about that, I'd need to know much more.
In general, I don't have much faith in most snap judgements.
For example, that thread about research money being spent on studying something related to syphilis among Peru's gay male prostitutes. Sure, it sounds idiotic, but weighing in on it (without using so many qualifiers/weasel words as to make an opinion near worthless) before knowing most of the facts seems even more idiotic to me. Too easy to be wrong.
-
Can't agree to that at this time; Personally, to feel good about that, I'd need to know much more.
In general, I don't have much faith in most snap judgements.
For example, that thread about research money being spent on studying something related to syphilis among Peru's gay male prostitutes. Sure, it sounds idiotic, but weighing in on it (without using so many qualifiers/weasel words as to make an opinion near worthless) before knowing most of the facts seems even more idiotic to me. Too easy to be wrong.
Snap Judgements?
These law has been a disaster for the past 3 years, what else do you need?
Millions losing their coverage even when told "if you like your plan, you can keep it...PERIOD"
Millions losing their doctors even when told "if you like your doctor, you can keep them...PERIOD"
Insurance premiums and deductibles sky rocketing even though obama promised they would decline
Huge increase in govt subsidies and liabilities
Millions set to lose their coverage due to the employer mandate kicking in at the end of the year
Millions set to lose their doctor due to the employer mandate kicking in at the end of the year.
and now we find that it will also result in less people working while at the same time placing more people on the govt tit...
AND YOU THINK ITS A SNAP JUDGEMENT??? ::)
again liberals = emotion...conservatives = facts
-
Snap Judgements?
These law has been a disaster for the past 3 years, what else do you need?
Millions losing their coverage even when told "if you like your plan, you can keep it...PERIOD"
Millions losing their doctors even when told "if you like your doctor, you can keep them...PERIOD"
Insurance premiums and deductibles sky rocketing even though obama promised they would decline
Huge increase in govt subsidies and liabilities
Millions set to lose their coverage due to the employer mandate kicking in at the end of the year
Millions set to lose their doctor due to the employer mandate kicking in at the end of the year.
and now we find that it will also result in less people working while at the same time placing more people on the govt tit...
AND YOU THINK ITS A SNAP JUDGEMENT??? ::)
again liberals = emotion...conservatives = facts
Whoa, Nelly! Miscommunication alert!
I thought we were only talking about the CBO's forecast for ACA's effect on the US budget and unemployment rates.
Yeah, ACA sucks.
We need single payer -- and that's no snap judgement on my part.
-
Whoa, Nelly! Miscommunication alert!
I thought we were only talking about the CBO's forecast for ACA's effect on the US budget and unemployment rates.
Yeah, ACA sucks.
We need single payer -- and that's no snap judgement on my part.
so how about calling out the idiots who support it and continue to support it instead of deflecting and trying to defend it?
Seems like we have a similar goal yet you dont seem to do anything about it.
-
so how about calling out the idiots who support it and continue to support it instead of deflecting and trying to defend it?
Seems like we have a similar goal yet you dont seem to do anything about it.
I'm not into slagging it much yet because I think it's a regrettably necessary first step toward getting single payer. (And I've posted a lot here in support of single payer.)
And, anyway, MY plan didn't change so I don't have much to complain about, personally.
-
Not only the WaPo fact checker, sorry.
Straw is right, though: Trying to reason with most conservatives is futile.
beyond futile and not worth the time
what's the point of explaining that what the CBO estimated was that people would VOLUNTARILY choose to work less or even stop working because they would no longer be tied to their jobs in order to have affordable health insurance
Repubs are still going to run ad's saying it's going to cost 2 million jobs and the majority of right wing dopes are going to believe it and pound their chest and feel vindicated
-
I'm not into slagging it much yet because I think it's a regrettably necessary first step toward getting single payer. (And I've posted a lot here in support of single payer.)
And, anyway, MY plan didn't change so I don't have much to complain about, personally.
so the means justify the ends for you?
yet another liberal quality...::)
-
beyond futile and not worth the time
what's the point of explaining that what the CBO estimated was that people would VOLUNTARILY choose to work less or even stop working because they would no longer be tied to their jobs in order to have affordable health insurance
Repubs are still going to run ad's saying it's going to cost 2 million jobs and the majority of right wing dopes are going to believe it and pound their chest and feel vindicated
taking money from others is not affording health insurance moron...
SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT!!!!
-
taking money from others is not affording health insurance moron...
SOMEONE ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT!!!!
stop with the caps already
the subsidies are there for that reason and some people will choose to use them
CBO Director said today that the ACA will actually boost the demand for labor
I'm going to copy the article because I doubt you will bother to read it before you bang out another response in caps
maybe you can make it through a few second of a video
-
stop with the caps already
the subsidies are there for that reason and some people will choose to use them
CBO Director said today that the ACA will actually boost the demand for labor
I'm going to copy the article because I doubt you will bother to read it before you bang out another response in caps
maybe you can make it through a few second of a video
LOL - f off
-
LOL - f off
you ran out of ideas pretty quickly
-
so the means justify the ends for you?
yet another liberal quality...::)
I think you mean "the end justifies the means" and, if so, I'll not dodge the question ( ;)) and answer a qualified "yes, depending, of course, on how important the end is and how objectionable the means (i.e., if it's seems worth it).
Anyway, ACA is not unqualifiedly bad for everyone (compared to the old system), is it?
What about those poor mofo's with serious pre-conditions who couldn't get insurance at all? Pretty awesome for them.
-
Any one who argues that it's ok for crapcare to exist because it gives people subsidies that will give them the choice to work less or not work at all AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER CITIZENS, is A MORON!
Are you libtards serious?
The economy is crap. It's been at 7% or higher UE for years. Actual UE is 13% because official government stats don't reflect those that have stopped looking and are on government assistance. There is record number of people on welfare. Unemployment benefits getting extended into infinity. The middle class is dwindling and struggling.
At one point democrats were arguing for job creation. Now they are saying that it's a good thing for 2.5 million to be out of the workforce. One idiot criticized the GOP for being against freedom. Freedom? What about freedom from having to pay higher taxes in order to support those 2.5 million? What about that freedom? If people out of work equals freedom then why not have 100 million or 200 million people working part time jobs or not working at all? Then we will really be a country of freedom (following libtard logic) and at the same time become Greece. Or do you morons actually believe that those subsidies come out of thin air?
The less people working, the worse in the long run is for the economy.
So much for libtards and democrats supporting job creation.
-
The bottom line is democrats lied about crapcare.
"It will create 4 million jobs, 400 thousand jobs almost immediately".
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/jails-enroll-inmates-in-obamacare-to-pass-hospital-costs-to-u-s-.html
WTF
-
No wonder people will want to work less and earn less.
For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."
The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.
Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000.
Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov:
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-05%20at%204.54.46%20PM.preview.png)
But if they earn $62,041--just one dollar more--they would pay $1,342 per month. That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan:(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-05%20at%205.52.09%20PM.preview.png)
But for Americans teetering on the edge of Obamacare's subsidy cliff, the decision to work more in order to earn less isn't much of a free choice at all.
So there is no FREEDOM. You are FORCE into making the decision.
So much for that dumb democrat that equated 2.5 million working less with freedom.
-
The Affordable Healthcare Act is anything but "Affordable".
The entire healthcare bill is a travesty.
-
If we'd just follow the constitution in regards what Uncle Sam is responsible for we'd all be better off. Half the argument is not whether healthcare like this is a good idea, its whether the gov can pull it off. The US military is pretty dam good...we're organized, we fight well, we have good equipment, fairly large and complex etc.....but really we win because most other countries are a clusterfuck and can't get out of the motor pool on a good day. Everything is a good idea until you expect people to execute you're plan....then its a shit show. The private sector is different as the motivations are different.
-
stop with the caps already
the subsidies are there for that reason and some people will choose to use them
CBO Director said today that the ACA will actually boost the demand for labor
I'm going to copy the article because I doubt you will bother to read it before you bang out another response in caps
maybe you can make it through a few second of a video
LOL Nice try but what they said is it would boost the demand for goods and services over the next few years...This is not exactly the same as boost the demand for labor.
Higher demand for labor is contingent on the business capacity to produce more/service more. An increase in demand doesnt equate to a increase in labor...
Also this is over the next few years in other word short run, not long run like the disencentive to work and people on the govt tit...
-
Not only the WaPo fact checker, sorry.
Straw is right, though: Trying to reason with most conservatives is futile.
Next time Strawman is anally penetrating you, be sure to show him your appreciation by giving him a high five.
-
People in general, yes I agree.
But I could see where it might be a good idea to get some people to work less so that other people could work more.
Like giving some high-earning folks incentives to take early retirements to make room for more younger workers.
Mind you, I'm not endorsing this idea. I'm just bringing it up to point out that it's not as clear cut as you might think at first blush.
That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!
-
Can't agree to that at this time; Personally, to feel good about that, I'd need to know much more.
In general, I don't have much faith in most snap judgements.
For example, that thread about research money being spent on studying something related to syphilis among Peru's gay male prostitutes. Sure, it sounds idiotic, but weighing in on it (without using so many qualifiers/weasel words as to make an opinion near worthless) before knowing most of the facts seems even more idiotic to me. Too easy to be wrong.
Based on the above quotation, you obviously spend your leisure time with gay prostitutes in South America. So I'm sure the study was of particular concern to you.
-
That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!
Please post more often George Whorewell!!! ROFL
-
That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!
LOL!!!! ha ha ha ha ha
-
Based on the above quotation, you obviously spend your leisure time with gay prostitutes in South America. So I'm sure the study was of particular concern to you.
I do not!
-
Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions.
This is the center of the majority of libtard ideology
-
If we'd just follow the constitution in regards what Uncle Sam is responsible for we'd all be better off. Half the argument is not whether healthcare like this is a good idea, its whether the gov can pull it off. The US military is pretty dam good...we're organized, we fight well, we have good equipment, fairly large and complex etc.....but really we win because most other countries are a clusterfuck and can't get out of the motor pool on a good day. Everything is a good idea until you expect people to execute you're plan....then its a shit show. The private sector is different as the motivations are different.
Follow the Constitution? Isn't one of the major strengths of the Constitution that it can be changed?
-
Next time Strawman is anally penetrating you, be sure to show him your appreciation by giving him a high five.
Good one, Beavis.
-
That makes perfect sense. I mean, every person who has a job is by necessity depriving someone else from having a job-- therefore, government programs that provide disincentives to gainful employment always boost the economy. Sure the numbers reveal the opposite, but results always take second place to having good intentions. For example, Obamacare will result in things being more fair and people will have the option to stay home do nothing. Like you said above, this myth about Americans leaving the workforce is totally overblown. Everyone pretty much has a job. The only people leaving the workforce are wealthy (probably white) millionaires and billionaires who are old and greedy. They should retire and then younger, unemployed, less experienced workers will receive equivalent pay!
Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock". (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)
-
Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock". (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)
so whatever it was the reps were for years ago somehow justifies this shit sandwich?
-
Google Paul Ryan and "Job-lock". (You know, the thing that republicans were in favor of a couple of years ago.)
So, what you're saying is that you support higher unemployment?
-
relevant question is how the rep would have relieved them of "job lock"?
would it have been through govt subsidies?
-
What I find just absolutely hillarious is these same morons are the ones who will say the reps have no ideas for healthcare reform and then will try and point to their ideas as justification for the stupidity of those they support.
-
So, what you're saying is that you support higher unemployment?
Higher unemployment? Is that the issue?
What I'm of favor of is having healthcare not tied to employment. Do you understand that idea?
-
Higher unemployment? Is that the issue?
What I'm of favor of is having healthcare not tied to employment. Do you understand that idea?
Yes shit for brains, that is the issue. That is the only issue.
What rational, intelligent people support are policies that don't create incentives for people to remain jobless. I also hope you realize that by your own idiotic reasoning, healthcare will still be tied to employment because those who actually work will be willing to keep shitty, low wage jobs for a government healthcare subsidy
-
Yes shit for brains, that is the issue. That is the only issue.
That's the only issue with Obamacare? I disagree.
What rational, intelligent people support are policies that don't create incentives for people to remain jobless.
Incentives? How about making employment required under penalty of death? Does that make sense to you, freak? (And considering some of the health problems that some people are dealing with, this is a valid question.)
I also hope you realize that by your own idiotic reasoning, healthcare will still be tied to employment because those who actually work will be willing to keep shitty, low wage jobs for a government healthcare subsidy.
Maybe. But they don't have to stay in THE SAME job just to avoid a discontinuation of their healthcare. This could mean that they're more free to, say, start their own business even though their initial financial return will be low.
And, anyway, what IS all this "people need incentives to work" BS? Are you not acquainted with the job situation in the USA? There are plenty of people to fill jobs that will be left by those for whom healthcare was the overriding factor in whether they kept their job.
Mr. Whorehell, it's great that you write with conviction, but how about if you think a little bit first? Thanks.
-
No wonder people will want to work less and earn less.
For some people, CBO notes, the incentive to reduce their hours or quit their jobs will be especially strong: "People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold."
The Obamacare subsidy cliff is so steep that if you earn just $1 above the threshold, you could end up paying anywhere from a few thousand dollars to $20,000 more for insurance, depending on your age.
Take the case of a couple of 55-year-olds living in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, where the median household income is a little over $68,000.
Let's say that they earn $62,040 in 2014. They would pay $211 per month for the cheapest Obamacare plan available on healthcare.gov:
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-05%20at%204.54.46%20PM.preview.png)
But if they earn $62,041--just one dollar more--they would pay $1,342 per month. That's an extra $13,572 per year for the same bare-bones insurance plan:(http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/images/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-05%20at%205.52.09%20PM.preview.png)
But for Americans teetering on the edge of Obamacare's subsidy cliff, the decision to work more in order to earn less isn't much of a free choice at all.
So there is no FREEDOM. You are FORCE into making the decision.
So much for that dumb democrat that equated 2.5 million working less with freedom.
Good, informative post Dario.
Isn't this situation pretty much the way it works for single parents, though? (Not that that's an argument against your point.) I'm talking about childcare expenses potentially eating up all the extra money that might be earned by working extra hours (in jobs below a certain income level).
Seems to me that a cost/benefit analysis always needs to be done when deciding how much to work, right?
Maybe it depends on whether you're a "live to work" type or a "work to live" type?
Personally, I would rather "work to live" and I'm sure there are many who feel the same way. (Especially on a BB board.)
-
That's the only issue with Obamacare? I disagree.
Incentives? How about making employment required under penalty of death? Does that make sense to you, freak? (And considering some of the health problems that some people are dealing with, this is a valid question.)
when did it become prominent liberal thinking that you are entitled to other people taking care of you?
The incentive to work is so that you are able to take care of your needs and wants. Nobody is saying work until death their brainchild only that you shouldnt be taking from others to support yourself while you still have the ability to work.
There are and have been plenty of govt programs to support those who cannot support themselves due to disabilities so please stop with that tired ass talking point.
-
Good, informative post Dario.
Isn't this situation pretty much the way it works for single parents, though? (Not that that's an argument against your point.) I'm talking about childcare expenses potentially eating up all the extra money that might be earned by working extra hours (in jobs below a certain income level).
Seems to me that a cost/benefit analysis always needs to be done when deciding how much to work, right?
Maybe it depends on whether you're a "live to work" type or a "work to live" type?
Personally, I would rather "work to live" and I'm sure there are many who feel the same way. (Especially on a BB board.)
work to live all you want but dont expect others to subsidize your laziness
-
What I find just absolutely hillarious is these same morons are the ones who will say the reps have no ideas for healthcare reform and then will try and point to their ideas as justification for the stupidity of those they support.
Naw Tony, I wasn't doing that. I just wanted to bring up the "job lock" argument and was too lazy to write much but when I google the term (intent on doing a SC-style copy pasta) I saw a Paul Ryan video where he was arguing the same point and, silly me, I thought your average conservatard might listen to him more than, say, Bernie Sanders.
BTW, ya misspelled "hilarious". :) -- Which is no biggie -- I'm convinced you can spell when you want to but fer fuck's sake, doesn't your browser check the spelling automatically? Are you using Netscape or what?
-
Naw Tony, I wasn't doing that. I just wanted to bring up the "job lock" argument and was too lazy to write much but when I google the term (intent on doing a SC-style copy pasta) I saw a Paul Ryan video where he was arguing the same point and, silly me, I thought your average conservatard might listen to him more than, say, Bernie Sanders.
BTW, ya misspelled "hilarious". :) -- Which is no biggie -- I'm convinced you can spell when you want to but fer fuck's sake, doesn't your browser check the spelling automatically? Are you using Netscape or what?
I wasnt necessarily saying you b/c I dont believe you have ever said that but many a liberal have on this board.
hahah I have the spell check button but Im not worried about spelling and grammer here so I dont use it ;)
-
I wasnt necessarily saying you b/c I dont believe you have ever said that but many a liberal have on this board.
hahah I have the spell check button but Im not worried about spelling and grammer here so I dont use it ;)
Ah, Ok.
I don't use the Spell Check soft button either (to need to do that would be a bother, I agree). My browser automatically makes a wavy little red line under any word it thinks is misspelled as soon as I type it (when I hit the spacebar).
For Firefox, go to Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> General, and then check box that says "Check my spelling as I type".
BTW, that box was checked by default -- I didn't know it was there until I looked right now.
-
I use IE and Im sure there is a setting for it but like I said I am not worried about grammer and spelling here.
-
I use IE and Im sure there is a setting for it but like I said I am not worried about grammer and spelling here.
Internet Exploder? Hope you have a good anti-virus program...
-
Job lock?
So now democrats are bringing back a term made famous by Hillary Clinton.
All of you are morons if you think democrats were thinking of resolving the dreaded "job lock" when they came up with crapcare.
The loss of 2.5 million workers is a consequence of this stupid law and the only thing that libtards can come up with to condone it is to repeat the words "job lock" and "freedom".
Libtards are pathetic.
EHEHEHEHEHE!
-
I noticed how no one answered my question as to how the reps were going to relieve ppl of "job lock" was it on the backs of the tax payer?