Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 236

Thread: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinner

  1. #91
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,657

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    The bold part is the root of your misunderstanding. No one, CBO included, is saying 2 million jobs will be lost.

    You believe the lie because you want to believe the lie.

    I'm not parroting anything but what the CBO says. I did post the link to the CBO report and quote the CBO director regarding HIS report.

    So, I ponied up my proof... where's yours?
    You did not post the CBO report. You have posted and parroted the defense of, the interpretation of. You have not posted the actual report or what it says. And from the comments most people have made they havent read the actual report either. I asked the first-5 responders to provide a link to the actual REPORT that they were defending. There was a reason for that. I dont trust congressmen or TV personalities to not have an agenda. Hell...I dont trust the head of the CBO to not have an agenda. I really wanted to see and read the actual report.

    What the actual reports says is incongruent with reality. It implies employees dictate jobs and hours worked. The report implies there will be the equivalent of 2-2.5 million jobs in manhours that are not worked. It cites 2 Reasons. Reason 1...they wont need to because they wont have to work to provide insurance for themselves. Reason 2-they wont work because it will put them in a higher tax bracket. The PROBLEM is with the rationale that an EMPLOYEE dictates job markets. EVEN IF the CBO estimates are accurate...and nothing so far on the ACA has been remotely accurate...it is still not possible that those 2-2.5 million jobs in equivalent hours will cease to exist because employees wont feel the need desire or ability to work them. IF those manhours are REQUIRED they will be filled by someone. If their estimate is 'just' that people will cumulatively work fewer hours that implies those jobs are not NEEDED.

  2. #92
    Professor
    Tettsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    You did not post the CBO report. You have posted and parroted the defense of, the interpretation of. You have not posted the actual report or what it says. And from the comments most people have made they havent read the actual report either. I asked the first-5 responders to provide a link to the actual REPORT that they were defending. There was a reason for that. I dont trust congressmen or TV personalities to not have an agenda. Hell...I dont trust the head of the CBO to not have an agenda. I really wanted to see and read the actual report.

    What the actual reports says is incongruent with reality. It implies employees dictate jobs and hours worked. The report implies there will be the equivalent of 2-2.5 million jobs in manhours that are not worked. It cites 2 Reasons. Reason 1...they wont need to because they wont have to work to provide insurance for themselves. Reason 2-they wont work because it will put them in a higher tax bracket. The PROBLEM is with the rationale that an EMPLOYEE dictates job markets. EVEN IF the CBO estimates are accurate...and nothing so far on the ACA has been remotely accurate...it is still not possible that those 2-2.5 million jobs in equivalent hours will cease to exist because employees wont feel the need desire or ability to work them. IF those manhours are REQUIRED they will be filled by someone. If their estimate is 'just' that people will cumulatively work fewer hours that implies those jobs are not NEEDED.
    I posted the link to the CBO report. So yes, I did not post the actual report. You're correct.

    You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't say that the CBO is wrong, but use their information to support your stance.

    Choosing not to work a second job is absolutely up to the employee. Choosing not to work overtime is absolutely up to the employee (most of the time).

    My problem is solely the purposeful misinterpretation of the CBO report by you and conservatives. Whether you believe the CBO's report or not doesn't matter to me. I respect your opinion though.
    A man without fear is a fool, a man that succumbs to his fear is a coward and a brave man acknowledges fear yet presses on.
    http://soulinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,016

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    An HMO is a form of insurance.

    Regardless, if one person doesn't pay their bill, you end up getting charged more. Just like how shoplifting makes things more expensive for the rest of us.
    Except with my HMO, if you dont pay your bill you get dropped and sued. Thus there is little cost inflation. There are upfront membership costs, and then copays for everything. And its VOLUNTARY. I dont have ot be a member, unlike obamacare.

  4. #94
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,657

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    I posted the link to the CBO report. So yes, I did not post the actual report. You're correct.

    You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't say that the CBO is wrong, but use their information to support your stance.

    Choosing not to work a second job is absolutely up to the employee. Choosing not to work overtime is absolutely up to the employee (most of the time).

    My problem is solely the purposeful misinterpretation of the CBO report by you and conservatives. Whether you believe the CBO's report or not doesn't matter to me. I respect your opinion though.
    Lets be completely upfront...I dont trust ANY government agency to be truthful. I certianly dont trust people who's jobs and careers and livelihood depend on kissing the ass of those they are responsible to report on.

    Now...I dont expect you to go back and reread the thread because frankly...it shouldnt be that important to you to dedicate that kind of time to (and I mean that in a positive way). But the fact is that with the first defender of Ellisons words I asked him to support his comments by providing the report, and not some kneejerk response. Silence. The second...same thing and not only silence but anger and personal attacks. Third...same. Forth. Same. You were I believe the fifth and the only one of ANY of them that offered a substantive rebuttal. Of you I asked you to provide the REPORT. I figured that after all...people that wade in defending the comments surely have read the actual report. They ahdnt and it is obvious. I finally said to hell with it and looked up the report. I read what the report said regarding jobs and the ACA. The fact is that the report DOES attribute 2-2.5 million in jobs and manhours lost directly related to the ACA and it gave two reasons. The first was because people would choose to work less because they didnt need to work as much. The second was that people would choose to work less because if they worked mre, the provisions of the ACA would be fiscally punitive (increased taxes). Then comes the manipulation and dancing.

    Look...lets be real. The ACA isnt going to be around in 2024 when the final estimates are expected to be realized. Second, the CBO estimates are tripe. Their own words and reality show that they have millions fewer enrolled than what they projected, and yet, they project surplus in revenues vs decreases. OK...set THAT aside. They estimate that while they have a small fraction of enrollees currently that it should all change and be close to goals by March...the open enrollment period. Sure...OK...take THAT on faith, ignore the numbers and set THAT aside. The CBO has underestimate the new enrollees in government provided care. OK...set THAT aside.

    The meat...
    "The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full effect over the next several years and that will influence the supply of and demand for labor through various channels. For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some people will be phased out as their income rises—creating an implicit tax on additional earnings— whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during the next few years."

    "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."

    "Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would
    have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours"

    and here is where it goes totally political and wonky...

    "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 "

    Hogwash. ASSUMING their estimates are correct, the ABSOLUTE REALITY is that as an employER...my employee requirements are NOT dictated by how many hours my employees choose to work. If there s a demand or need for labor...I WILL fill that demand. If there is NOT a demand, JOBS have been adversely impacted. There is no way around that reality.

  5. #95
    Professor
    Tettsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,320

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Lets be completely upfront...I dont trust ANY government agency to be truthful. I certianly dont trust people who's jobs and careers and livelihood depend on kissing the ass of those they are responsible to report on.
    Totally reasonable based on history. I'm with you here. Give me the facts and I'll go along with you. Give me nothing but estimates based on wishful thinking... I gotta give the suspicious eye to ya.

    Now...I dont expect you to go back and reread the thread because frankly...it shouldnt be that important to you to dedicate that kind of time to (and I mean that in a positive way). But the fact is that with the first defender of Ellisons words I asked him to support his comments by providing the report, and not some kneejerk response. Silence. The second...same thing and not only silence but anger and personal attacks. Third...same. Forth. Same. You were I believe the fifth and the only one of ANY of them that offered a substantive rebuttal. Of you I asked you to provide the REPORT. I figured that after all...people that wade in defending the comments surely have read the actual report. They ahdnt and it is obvious. I finally said to hell with it and looked up the report. I read what the report said regarding jobs and the ACA. The fact is that the report DOES attribute 2-2.5 million in jobs and manhours lost directly related to the ACA and it gave two reasons. The first was because people would choose to work less because they didnt need to work as much. The second was that people would choose to work less because if they worked mre, the provisions of the ACA would be fiscally punitive (increased taxes). Then comes the manipulation and dancing.
    These are the sticking point for me.

    First - Manhours is being treated as actual jobs being lost. It's the reduction in manhours, counted and then translated into jobs (35 to 40 hour work weeks), that's being calculated, not actual jobs being cut or dropped. Not the same thing. Not even close.

    Second - The CBO is guessing that people will act a particular way. They are not saying the ACA will cause job loss (employers firing people), but that people will look at their situation and decide to act in a particular way. The ACA gives people a choice. "Should I work harder and more hours for healthcare when I don't have to anymore?" That's the choice people will be faced with. The CBO believes that choice will lead to many saying "F*ck this job!" or "I'm not working 20 more hours in this crappy place for healthcare!". Again, that's not strictly due to the policies in the ACA, but people choosing to act a particular way now that they are giving a choice. That's a wholly different situation than what's being presented by Conservatives. Honestly, it's a gross misrepresentation made to appeal to the base. It's nothing but a bogus talking point and it's bothers me that folks continue to swallow and regurgitate it.

    Look...lets be real. The ACA isnt going to be around in 2024 when the final estimates are expected to be realized. Second, the CBO estimates are tripe. Their own words and reality show that they have millions fewer enrolled than what they projected, and yet, they project surplus in revenues vs decreases. OK...set THAT aside. They estimate that while they have a small fraction of enrollees currently that it should all change and be close to goals by March...the open enrollment period. Sure...OK...take THAT on faith, ignore the numbers and set THAT aside. The CBO has underestimate the new enrollees in government provided care. OK...set THAT aside.

    The meat...
    "The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full effect over the next several years and that will influence the supply of and demand for labor through various channels. For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some people will be phased out as their income rises—creating an implicit tax on additional earnings— whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during the next few years."

    "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."

    "Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would
    have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours"

    and here is where it goes totally political and wonky...

    "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 "

    Hogwash. ASSUMING their estimates are correct, the ABSOLUTE REALITY is that as an employER...my employee requirements are NOT dictated by how many hours my employees choose to work. If there s a demand or need for labor...I WILL fill that demand. If there is NOT a demand, JOBS have been adversely impacted. There is no way around that reality.
    Ultimately, I agree with you in regards to being skeptical of any and all estimates. It doesn't take much to throw it out of whack and in an ever-changing policy environment, nothing will remain the same for a decade.

    My problem is only with the mis-characterization in regards to job loss. That's it. The talking point is dishonest and totally confuses the issues that the ACA does have by causing silly debates over what the CBO did or did not say.

    I've posted what the CBO believes in regard to the talking point. That's straight from the horse's mouth. I just want there to be a common starting point so real debate can take place, instead of the nonsense of debating clearly incorrect talking points.
    A man without fear is a fool, a man that succumbs to his fear is a coward and a brave man acknowledges fear yet presses on.
    http://soulinblackandwhite.blogspot.com/

  6. #96
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,657

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    Totally reasonable based on history. I'm with you here. Give me the facts and I'll go along with you. Give me nothing but estimates based on wishful thinking... I gotta give the suspicious eye to ya.


    These are the sticking point for me.

    First - Manhours is being treated as actual jobs being lost. It's the reduction in manhours, counted and then translated into jobs (35 to 40 hour work weeks), that's being calculated, not actual jobs being cut or dropped. Not the same thing. Not even close.

    Second - The CBO is guessing that people will act a particular way. They are not saying the ACA will cause job loss (employers firing people), but that people will look at their situation and decide to act in a particular way. The ACA gives people a choice. "Should I work harder and more hours for healthcare when I don't have to anymore?" That's the choice people will be faced with. The CBO believes that choice will lead to many saying "F*ck this job!" or "I'm not working 20 more hours in this crappy place for healthcare!". Again, that's not strictly due to the policies in the ACA, but people choosing to act a particular way now that they are giving a choice. That's a wholly different situation than what's being presented by Conservatives. Honestly, it's a gross misrepresentation made to appeal to the base. It's nothing but a bogus talking point and it's bothers me that folks continue to swallow and regurgitate it.


    Ultimately, I agree with you in regards to being skeptical of any and all estimates. It doesn't take much to throw it out of whack and in an ever-changing policy environment, nothing will remain the same for a decade.

    My problem is only with the mis-characterization in regards to job loss. That's it. The talking point is dishonest and totally confuses the issues that the ACA does have by causing silly debates over what the CBO did or did not say.

    I've posted what the CBO believes in regard to the talking point. That's straight from the horse's mouth. I just want there to be a common starting point so real debate can take place, instead of the nonsense of debating clearly incorrect talking points.
    I hear what you are saying. regardless of whatshisbuckets personal stuff earlier in the thread, I really wanted to know the actual report and it was obvious most have not read the report.

    I dont trust the CBO. But set that aside. I agree completely that if their intent was to discuss hours worked they should have focused on that. part of the problem is that the CBO itself has created the confusion and really, the several pages that deal with the ACA are filled with double speak. Now...had they JUST said "many low to lower middle income workers
    will work less hours" then there wouldnt be much room for confusion. But to claim there will be job loss but only because people will work LESS defies the logic of the employer/employee relationship. Everything else starts to smack of politics and I agree..that is very much a two way street.

  7. #97
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,343

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You think.
    You link? LOL!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You link? LOL!
    I have linked what the report actually said. But you make a cliam you haven't supported. Not me.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I mean the economy of today usually requires two incomes to make it work.

    Then maybe we expect too much in our lives.... multiple csrs, cable TV in every room, eating out all the time, etc....

  10. #100
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,140

    Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    Then maybe we expect too much in our lives.... multiple csrs, cable TV in every room, eating out all the time, etc....
    1950's a long time ago. Get over it.

    The whole "women didn't work" thing is a myth anyway. Also, nobody slept in separate twin beds. "Leave it to Beaver" is a sitcom, not a documentary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •