• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Of course I can because I see the huge benefit that a stay-at-home parent makes over cheap childcare, or a 60-65yo who is laid off and has the money to survive fine and begin retirement except for that health insurance issue. Sorry, I guess YOU are limited in your ability to see the realities of life, I am not.

The reality is that we already have 92 million people who left the job market. Adding more people to that number is a bad thing.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Why is that my problem to pay for?
For the same reason that I have to help pay for the roads you use to get to work, the electric grid you use to power your home, the failures of banksters and wallstreet, schools for your family.... because that's why communities group together in neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries. Because the resources provided by many for the good of all costs everyone less than trying to accomplish everything individually. Really, do you need this explained to you?
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

There will be fewer jobs...because fewer employees will be WANTING jobs. In an economy with unemployment in the black community running at around 20%, overall unemployment about the same...and...there will be 2 million fewer jobs but only because less people will need to work. Thats REALLY your position?

Love to see the CBO report that shows that we will see a reduction in jobs of 2 million in a nation with rampant unemployment problems. So far, one person vanished, the other has had several rage episodes...but maybe third time is the charm. Can YOU produce the CBO report and findings that show that 2 million fewer jobs will be a GOOD thing?

"talking points"... :lamo
You keep saying their will be fewer jobs, that's a lie and not what the CBO presents. IF you insist on blowing a lie up your own ass, don't expect any of us who know what is says to continue to deal the the stink coming out of your ass.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Why is that my problem to pay for?

Who do you think does? You already were.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Who do you think does? You already were.

ACA doesn't stop that. People still aren't buying insurance, even with subsidies.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Did you actually read the whole paragragh? Cuz...it seems like you picked a few words and omitted the rest.

Fewer jobs equal fewer jobs. But as you are so excited about the prospects, I only can hope for your sake that you and everyone you know are of that lucky 2 million. Dare to dream, baby!

Interesting... because fewer jobs is not the result. A reduction in hours worked that's equivalent to 2 mil fewer jobs does not equal 2 mil fewer jobs. It's not that complex. The paragraph you posted agrees with me.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

There will be fewer jobs...because fewer employees will be WANTING jobs. In an economy with unemployment in the black community running at around 20%, overall unemployment about the same...and...there will be 2 million fewer jobs but only because less people will need to work. Thats REALLY your position?

Love to see the CBO report that shows that we will see a reduction in jobs of 2 million in a nation with rampant unemployment problems. So far, one person vanished, the other has had several rage episodes...but maybe third time is the charm. Can YOU produce the CBO report and findings that show that 2 million fewer jobs will be a GOOD thing?

"talking points"... :lamo

You swallowed a lie hook, line and sinker. I suggest you re-read the CBO report.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

You swallowed a lie hook, line and sinker. I suggest you re-read the CBO report.
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.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

You keep saying their will be fewer jobs, that's a lie and not what the CBO presents. IF you insist on blowing a lie up your own ass, don't expect any of us who know what is says to continue to deal the the stink coming out of your ass.
Please...by all means...offer the actual report.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Interesting... because fewer jobs is not the result. A reduction in hours worked that's equivalent to 2 mil fewer jobs does not equal 2 mil fewer jobs. It's not that complex. The paragraph you posted agrees with me.
If I am an employER...and I have a 'job' that needs to be done...do you think that I as an 'employER' am going to not fill the equivalent of 2 million jobs because current employees dont want to work the equivalent of 2 million jobs? I dont give a **** if there is this pretense that people arent going to feel the need to work the equivalent value of 2 million jobs...if those jobs are NEEDED they will be FILLED. People dont work the hours THEY want to work.

So...I would still love to see the ACTUAL REPORT...the one YOU support...that says there will be a 2 million job loss, but really...not really because people wont want to work the equivalent of 2 million jobs anyway.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

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-111publ148/html/PLAW-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.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

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

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

ACA doesn't stop that. People still aren't buying insurance, even with subsidies.

You're right, it's not stopping it.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Actually, we are. That's part of it. And people only needed to work for insurance. Had other income, private income, who need insurance.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Just when you thought he wasn't a big enough idiot, Keith Ellison opened his trap on Fox again....

To a certain degree he does have a point. If we could get all the women out of the jobs they shouldn't have, there would likely be a much lower unemployment rate (as men would fill those jobs) and the women could get back to their proper place as housewives and homemakers.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Actually, we are. That's part of it. And people only needed to work for insurance. Had other income, private income, who need insurance.

Those people are a small minority.
 
Re: Rep. Keith Ellison on ObamaCare-Job Losses: More Time for Americans to Cook Dinne

Those people are a small minority.

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

Of course I can because I see the huge benefit that a stay-at-home parent makes over cheap childcare, or a 60-65yo who is laid off and has the money to survive fine and begin retirement except for that health insurance issue. Sorry, I guess YOU are limited in your ability to see the realities of life, I am not.

Reality? :lamo

Cheap child care is an oxymoron.

Except for that health care insurance issue? :doh

Who are you to decide whether or not someone will be fine if laid off from their job near retirement age, God or Keith Ellison?
 
Back
Top Bottom