Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 236

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

  1. #61
    Professor
    Tettsuo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    2,321

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I suggest you offer the "CBO Report" that you are supporting. Ive asked 4 people now to produce said 'report' and all I see is spin. I really would love to see the report that shows that there is an estimated 2-2.5 million in lost jobs and that that will be a 'good thing'. And since YOU so readily support the 'report' perhaps YOU could offer it for review.
    What the CBO report on Obamacare actually says about jobs - CBS News

    Taken out of context, that sentence could be read to say the ACA will be responsible for a loss of 2.5 million jobs over the next decade. However, the report's previous paragraph states, "The ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 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." So the phrase "a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers" is just a restatement of this in terms of how many full-time workers it is equal to.
    Directly from the horse's mouth
    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-11...111publ148.htm

    Q: Will 2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs in 2024 Because of the ACA?

    A: No, we would not describe our estimates in that way.

    We wrote in the report: “CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.” The reason for the reduction in the supply of labor is that the provisions of the ACA reduce the incentive to work for certain subsets of the population.

    For example, under the ACA, health insurance subsidies are provided to some people with low income and are phased out as their income rises; as a result, a portion of the added income from working more would be offset by a loss of some or all of the subsidies, which represents an implicit tax on earnings. Also, the ACA’s subsidies effectively boost the income of recipients, which will lead some of them to decide they can work less and still maintain or improve their standard of living. Therefore, some people will decide not to work or to work fewer hours than would otherwise be the case—including some people who will choose to retire earlier than they would have otherwise, and some people who will work less themselves and rely more on a spouse’s earnings. (Many other factors influence decisions about working, including, for example, income and payroll taxes and the cost of commuting and child care. Moreover, under current economic conditions, a substantial number of people who would like to work cannot find a job.)

    Because the longer-term reduction in work is expected to come almost entirely from a decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply in response to the changes in their incentives, we do not think it is accurate to say that the reduction stems from people “losing” their jobs.

    Here’s a useful way to think about the choice of wording: When firms do not have enough business and decide to lay people off, the people who are laid off are generally worse off and are therefore unhappy about what is happening. As a result, other people express their sympathy to those people for having “lost their jobs” due to forces beyond their control. In contrast, when the labor market is strong and people decide on their own to retire, to leave work to take care of their families, or to cut back on their hours to pursue other interests, those people presumably think they are better off (or they would not be making the voluntary choices they are making). As a result, other people are generally happy for them and do not describe them as having “lost their jobs.”

    Thus, there is a critical difference between, on the one hand, people who leave a job for reasons beyond their control and, on the other hand, people who choose not to work or to work less. The wording that people use to describe those differing circumstances reflects the different reactions of the people involved. In our report, we indicated that “the estimated reduction [in employment] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” so we think the language of “losing a job” does not fit.
    You fell for the lie.
    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/

  2. #62
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,620

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said...Do libs really think that everyone is so independently wealthy that they can just say 'oh, I am going to stop working now because I can buy health insurance'? What about the other bills of life that make up much more of a household budget....Mortgage/Rent, Electric, Gas, FOOD!!!!????? You libs really think that most people are only working to get Health Insurance? I don't.
    And I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said, do CONs really think both parents out in the job force are making enough to pay for all you mention plus the cost of child care??? What some can say is now that the healthcare issue is handled the wife can quit her job that didn't pay well but did have health insurance and actually save money by no longer needing child care.

    Example, the wife works in the school system as a cook, she starts before dawn and on the days she works at the local stop and rob part-time she gets home after dinner. She works these jobs because the school system has a healthcare plan. Her actual take home is shredded by child care costs.

    Her hubby has a nice job at a local mechanic shop, but it offers no health insurance. All three kids wear glasses and one for sure has asthma. going without health care insurance isn't a good option.

    Now NO ONE said 'most people' so quit the CON game. Since the CON magic family has a wife at home, nurturing the offspring while daddy brings home the bacon in order to have a more perfect family union, why all the lamenting????

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    ACA doesn't stop that. People still aren't buying insurance, even with subsidies.
    Perhaps that's because there is some uncertainty whether there will actually be the doctors necessary to provide care once the long process is completed, if it ever is. When Obama changing and delaying parts of his signature legislation, nothing now is certain. It's a mystery why anyone one would sign up for this but no mystery why concierge medical care is growing.

  4. #64
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,165

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    ACA doesn't stop that. People still aren't buying insurance, even with subsidies.
    You're right, it's not stopping it.


    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.

  5. #65
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,692

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tettsuo View Post
    You are still parroting rhetoric and have yet to post the actual report which you profess to believe. Where is the actual REPORT...not the defense of, not the spin, and not the rhetoric. Where is the REPORT that says 2 millions jobs will be lost but thats OK because they are 2 million jobs that will be lost because the employees really just dont want to have to work those hours anyway. Thats all I have asked since the very beginning.

    SURELY you have read the report and are not just mindlessly parroting what others have said...right? Why is it that now FIVE of you can parrot the rhetoric but not provide the actual report (which is all I asked from the get go before you all got so chunky and angry)

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    And I am increasingly stunned by this type of loony response to what the CBO said, do CONs really think both parents out in the job force are making enough to pay for all you mention plus the cost of child care??? What some can say is now that the healthcare issue is handled the wife can quit her job that didn't pay well but did have health insurance and actually save money by no longer needing child care.

    Example, the wife works in the school system as a cook, she starts before dawn and on the days she works at the local stop and rob part-time she gets home after dinner. She works these jobs because the school system has a healthcare plan. Her actual take home is shredded by child care costs.

    Her hubby has a nice job at a local mechanic shop, but it offers no health insurance. All three kids wear glasses and one for sure has asthma. going without health care insurance isn't a good option.

    Now NO ONE said 'most people' so quit the CON game. Since the CON magic family has a wife at home, nurturing the offspring while daddy brings home the bacon in order to have a more perfect family union, why all the lamenting????
    In your latest scenario the government is working in order to bring traditional families together. This certainly wasn't the original premise of caring for the uninsured, though it might have broader appeal. I guess the idea is to think up rational reasons why these laws are being introduced, changed, delayed, etc. Supporting traditional family values has not been previously promoted by the Democratic party, at least not since the 1950's.

  7. #67
    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
    There's no way you can justify laws that encourage people not to work.
    You mean like those that reduced the work week from 7 to 5 days. It boosted the economy at the time. I one point I believe that fiscal congress critter Ryan argued this type of encouragement would do something similar. Of course he's a republican. Who knows.

    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.

  8. #68
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You mean like those that reduced the work week from 7 to 5 days. It boosted the economy at the time. I one point I believe that fiscal congress critter Ryan argued this type of encouragement would do something similar. Of course he's a republican. Who knows.
    What are you even talking about? Do you even know?
    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.

  9. #69
    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
    What are you even talking about? Do you even know?
    I do, and I think you do as well. Ryan claimed a while back if people who worked less they would spend more and boost the economy. This is similar to the thinking that reduced the work week from 7 to five days. Back then you'd be the person arguing it was wrong to work less. Instead, the reduction did encourage spending, and did grow the economy. I'm saying you may just as wrong today.

    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.

  10. #70
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,465

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I do, and I think you do as well. Ryan claimed a while back if people who worked less they would spend more and boost the economy. This is similar to the thinking that reduced the work week from 7 to five days. Back then you'd be the person arguing it was wrong to work less. Instead, the reduction did encourage spending, and did grow the economy. I'm saying you may just as wrong today.
    Fewer people in the work force isn't going to boost the economy. We're not talking about people working less; we're talking about people not working, at all.
    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.

Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •