JMS Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Whether it is or isn't the governments job to incentivize people to work is irrelevant, however what it absolutely should never do is to discourage work and that is what is happening with the ACA. So yeah saying that is a benefit is ludicrous. Yes the government should never try to see that the working man doesn't have an incentive to work 60-70-80 hours a work..... It's comunism I tell you it's comunism...... I mean the government never should have coined a 8 hour work day... I mean it was critical part of Roosevelet's new deal.. and it's been part of many american's work ethic for now going on 80 years.. but how dare the government try to spread that grace to poor folks who are used to working dawn to dusk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Holy Guacamole... This is like the 4th time the GOP has blatantly lied about a CBO report.... Nothing has changed... Obamacare is still a net postive to our budget and economy to the tune of trillions of dollars... The Economy isn't going to create fewer jobs... All that's changed is folks who traditionally have to work two jobs to get by in our economy are going to opt to work a few hours less a week.. Workers will choose to work about 1-2% fewer hours by 2027 than was orginally projected by the CBO... The economy isn't going to create fewer jobs because of Obamacare.. It's going to create more net jobs because of Obamacare... Obamacare isn't going to cost us more... it's not even going to cost us anything.. It's still going to save us a bucket full of cash... It's going to save private citizens money, It's going to save the federal budet money... But OH MY GOD.... poor folks have a little cushon because they are being offered affordable healthcare... a few of them are going to opt work a few fewer hours a week... LIKE THAT's a BAD THING? You know how you might fix that? You might raise the minimum wage!!... give them a little incentive to work. more... Right out of the report.... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-the-cbo-report-on-obamacare-actually-says-about-jobs/ Your story, you tell it but the American people are consistently moving away from that position. That's going to be a real tough stance to run on IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 ACA raises taxes, now ya wanna raise minimum wage to make people want to work is this magic money like the unemployment stimulus? 2% net wouldn't happen to be the whole work force total would it? .....I'll admit that sounds better than what will really happen....which is people dropping out of the workforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I disagree that the government's job if to incentivize people to work. In fact, I think that is an insane statement. I haven't seen anybody say that it was. All I've seen is people saying that the government shouldn't be incentivizing people to NOT work. (And I agree with that opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Holy Guacamole... This is like the 4th time the GOP has blatantly lied about a CBO report.... Nothing has changed... Obamacare is still a net postive to our budget and economy to the tune of trillions of dollars... The Economy isn't going to create fewer jobs... All that's changed is folks who traditionally have to work two jobs to get by in our economy are going to opt to work a few hours less a week.. Workers will choose to work about 1-2% fewer hours by 2027 than was orginally projected by the CBO...I think you're making a valid point, but may be minimizing things a bit too much. In order to reduce the total hours worked, by the entire economy, by 2%, we could have, say, . . . 1). Everybody in the economy work 2% fewer hours. 2). 2% of the workforce, stop working entirely. But,what you CAN'T have, is a tiny portion of the economy, work a tiny portion less. If you do that, then it doesn't affect the total that much. Edited February 7, 2014 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 is this magic money like the unemployment stimulus? No, sounds more like the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Now where the hells my $600 so I can live the rest of they year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I haven't seen anybody say that it was. All I've seen is people saying that the government shouldn't be incentivizing people to NOT work. (And I agree with that opinion). Damn Larry, I do want my free ride to the Old Folks Home. Insurance is my biggest obstacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Whether it is or isn't the governments job to incentivize people to work is irrelevant, however what it absolutely should never do is to discourage work and that is what is happening with the ACA. So yeah saying that is a benefit is ludicrous. This argument is absurd. The evidence is that people who want to retire early, or quit, or explore new job opportunities are now able to do that because they can get affordable health care even if they give up their job. This is a good thing. It doesnt discourage work, and even if it does for some, who cares? Honestly, this argument the right is making is insane. Edited February 7, 2014 by Tulane Skins Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This argument is absurd. The evidence is that people who want to retire early, or quit, or explore new job opportunities are now able to do that because they can get affordable health care even if they give up their job. This is a good thing. It dissent discourage work, and even if it does for some, who cares? Honestly, this argument the right is making is insane. Isn't this the crux of the problem out nation faces. Each side fundamentally can't comprehend why the other side thinks the way they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This argument is absurd. The evidence is that people who want to retire early, or quit, or explore new job opportunities are now able to do that because they can get affordable health care even if they give up their job. This is a good thing. 1) I think you'll find that the argument that's being made, here, is a whole lot simpler. It's "If we say 'reduce the labor pool by 1 million jobs', a lot of people will think we said 'will eliminate 1 million jobs'." Like a lot of political arguments, it's a statement that's been carefully crafted to try to make people think you said something that you carefully didn't actually say. 2) Having said that, though, yes, reducing the number of hours that people want to work can be bad, (or not), in some cases. If some 62 year old guy decides to retire, and his job is filled by some 35 year old guy who wanted a job, but was unemployed, then the labor pool (the number of people who want to work) has gone down, but the number of jobs hasn't changed. Society, as a whole, has seen one person go from "employed" to "retired", and one person go from "unemployed" to "employed". I would assert that that is actually a net positive, to society. Similarly, if, say, we go from one guy working 80 hours a week, to two guys working 40 each, I'd say that's a net positive. However, if we go from one guy working 80 hours, to one guy working 40, and his employer doesn't hire anybody else? Yeah, that was a voluntary reduction in hours worked. But I could see that as a net negative for the economy. And, I suspect that 1) Yes, Obamacare might actually incent some people into working less. 2) And not all of them will be the "net good to society" reductions in work. (Some of them will be. Maybe even most. But certainly not all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Does anyone know WHY the CBO revised it's estimate so much? people are funny things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 1) I think you'll find that the argument that's being made, here, is a whole lot simpler. It's "If we say 'reduce the labor pool by 1 million jobs', a lot of people will think we said 'will eliminate 1 million jobs'." Like a lot of political arguments, it's a statement that's been carefully crafted to try to make people think you said something that you carefully didn't actually say. 2) Having said that, though, yes, reducing the number of hours that people want to work can be bad, (or not), in some cases. If some 62 year old guy decides to retire, and his job is filled by some 35 year old guy who wanted a job, but was unemployed, then the labor pool (the number of people who want to work) has gone down, but the number of jobs hasn't changed. Society, as a whole, has seen one person go from "employed" to "retired", and one person go from "unemployed" to "employed". I would assert that that is actually a net positive, to society. Similarly, if, say, we go from one guy working 80 hours a week, to two guys working 40 each, I'd say that's a net positive. However, if we go from one guy working 80 hours, to one guy working 40, and his employer doesn't hire anybody else? Yeah, that was a voluntary reduction in hours worked. But I could see that as a net negative for the economy. And, I suspect that 1) Yes, Obamacare might actually incent some people into working less. 2) And not all of them will be the "net good to society" reductions in work. (Some of them will be. Maybe even most. But certainly not all.) This would make sense if Obamacare was kicking people out of the labor force. The findings are that people are CHOOSING to leave the labor force because they don't have work to have insurance. But, let there be no mistake, that statement above seems to have been accepted by the right. The argument is that PEOPLE CHOOSING to leave the work force is a bad thing. That the government making it EASIER for people to retire is somehow bad, and/or immoral (almost). That line of thinking, THAT ARGUMENT, is the one I am calling insane and truly absurd. Isn't this the crux of the problem out nation faces. Each side fundamentally can't comprehend why the other side thinks the way they do. Yes, that's true. But someone explain to me why its bad for individuals to now have the CHOICE to stop working earlier in life? If the argument is that without working 40 hours a week or more you are a bad person, or you are bad for the country, then the person making that argument is truly insane. If the argument is that the government should incentivize people have to work longer hours and longer into their life span, then they are insane. What is most likely though is that it is a half-assed talking point created by the right that a lot of lemmings aren't even considering the implications of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This would make sense if Obamacare was kicking people out of the labor force. The findings are that people are CHOOSING to leave the labor force because they don't have work to have insurance. But, let there be no mistake, that statement above seems to have been accepted by the right. The argument is that PEOPLE CHOOSING to leave the work force is a bad thing. That the government making it EASIER for people to retire is somehow bad, and/or immoral (almost). That line of thinking, THAT ARGUMENT, is the one I am calling insane and truly absurd. Yes, that's true. But someone explain to me why its bad for individuals to now have the CHOICE to stop working earlier in life? If the argument is that without working 40 hours a week or more you are a bad person, or you are bad for the country, then the person making that argument is truly insane. If the argument is that the government should incentivize people have to work longer hours and longer into their life span, then they are insane. What is most likely though is that it is a half-assed talking point created by the right that a lot of lemmings aren't even considering the implications of. I suppose its easier to make up what the opposition is saying and attacking those points then it is to address what they are actually saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This would make sense if Obamacare was kicking people out of the labor force. The findings are that people are CHOOSING to leave the labor force because they don't have work to have insurance. . And my point is that, even if we assume that all such reductions are voluntary, it's still likely that at least some of them are a negative for the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 And my point is that, even if we assume that all such reductions are voluntary, it's still likely that at least some of them are a negative for the economy. Even assuming you are right, negative for the economy is not negative for the country. This is what is being completely dismissed. We do not judge the value of a person by how much money they make. At least I hope not. We do not judge the value of a person by how many jobs they create. At least I hope not. It is mind-bottling (like my mind has been put in a bottle and shaken around) that people are arguing - vehemently - that it is "un-American," "wrong," "immoral" for people to make less money and spend more of their time as they want to spend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even assuming you are right, negative for the economy is not negative for the country. This is what is being completely dismissed. We do not judge the value of a person by how much money they make. At least I hope not. We do not judge the value of a person by how many jobs they create. At least I hope not. It is mind-bottling (like my mind has been put in a bottle and shaken around) that people are arguing - vehemently - that it is "un-American," "wrong," "immoral" for people to make less money and spend more of their time as they want to spend it. Nobody is saying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Nobody is saying that. Well, some people on FoxNews are explicitly saying those things. And it seems people in here are echoing those sentiments to me. I want a system that provides support, but also incentive to work and produce and move the economy in a positive direction. I dont want a system that provides cradle to grave govt handouts. Sure, why work when you dont have to. Dont worry, there will be plenty of people like me around to pull the sled. You really aren't saying its bad or "wrong" for the government to disincentivize more work? You aren't saying that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yeah, I'm really worried about what will happen when there aren't enough Americans to fill all the jobs we're going to have. Makes me flash back to the Clinton days, when Rush was trying to inform people that the economy was in dire straits, because the unemployment rate was too low, and "this could lead to increasing wages, triggering inflation". In short, warning people of the danger that, after 20 years of trickle-down economics, it might trickle down. Are you suggesting that this is a result of trickle down economics Larry or are you just being facisious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 And my point is that, even if we assume that all such reductions are voluntary, it's still likely that at least some of them are a negative for the economy. a negative that is increased by the subsidies ACA created. I've said all along it would benefit me,but I see it as costing the economy......Productive members of society deciding they no longer need to be productive ,AND taking subsidies from society at the same time,are problematic if the numbers are very high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Even assuming you are right, negative for the economy is not negative for the country. This is what is being completely dismissed. We do not judge the value of a person by how much money they make. At least I hope not. We do not judge the value of a person by how many jobs they create. At least I hope not. It is mind-bottling (like my mind has been put in a bottle and shaken around) that people are arguing - vehemently - that it is "un-American," "wrong," "immoral" for people to make less money and spend more of their time as they want to spend it. I don't understand how a down turn in our economy can not equate to a negative for the country. Has there ever been a case where economic downturn has not signaled a negative for our economy? Honest question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Are you suggesting that this is a result of trickle down economics Larry or are you just being facisious? Neither. I'm pointing out a stupid argument, by pointing at another one. ---------- I don't understand how a down turn in our economy can not equate to a negative for the country. Has there ever been a case where economic downturn has not signaled a negative for our economy? Honest question. Now, I certainly suppose that there ARE factors that go into the "good for the country" equation that aren't economic. Encouraging people to retire at 65 reduces the labor pool. But, is it bad for the country? Now, I do agree that, when we're talking about something whose impact is mostly economic? Then I suspect I agree with you, that measuring the economic impact is the part of the equation to look at. Edited February 7, 2014 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Neither. I'm pointing out a stupid argument, by pointing at another one. ---------- Now, I certainly suppose that there ARE factors that go into the "good for the country" equation that aren't economic. Encouraging people to retire at 65 reduces the labor pool. But, is it bad for the country? Now, I do agree that, when we're talking about something whose impact is mostly economic? Then I suspect I agree with you, that measuring the economic impact is the part of the equation to look at. LOL...... Very clever. I actually did chuckle at that response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I don't understand how a down turn in our economy can not equate to a negative for the country. Has there ever been a case where economic downturn has not signaled a negative for our economy? Honest question. Scary post. The end of World War II, the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the Iraq War... all bad for the economy. All good for the country. Convinced? Now, I do agree that, when we're talking about something whose impact is mostly economic? Then I suspect I agree with you, that measuring the economic impact is the part of the equation to look at. Ok, but the point of the ACA wasn't to create jobs or to improve the economy. It was to make healthcare more accessible and more affordable. If it has a net negative on the economy (which isn't even accurate to date), then that does not deem it a failure. This thread is getting frightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Scary post. The end of World War II, the end of the Vietnam War, the end of the Iraq War... all bad for the economy. All good for the country. Convinced? Talk about a scary post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Talk about a scary post. I don't get it. You think ongoing war is good for the country? Here's one a righty can probably get behind. Husband and wife both work so that they can afford health insurance, leaving their child home alone after school. Now, wife doesn't have to work, can choose to stay home and take care of her family. Bad for economy? Good for family? Edited February 7, 2014 by Tulane Skins Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now