CBO Finds Obamacare Lets Americans Quit Jobs They Don't Want, Which Rightbloggers, Naturally, Oppose
When it became clear that the jig was up, rightbloggers got pissed. Reason's David Harsanyi ed, "What was once a story about Obamacare's discouraging work and impeding job creation is now a dispute about semantics." ("Mission accomplished" -- by the lieberal MSM!) Harsanyi was especially angered by Kessler's fact check. "Using Kessler's logic," said Harsanyi, "each time some clueless reporter mentions the word 'jobs' in any story about the labor force participation rate -- or the unemployment rate, for that matter -- he or she may be lying to the public." Imagine, nit-picking the press over something like that!
When Salon's Brian Beutler called the mischaracterizations "the biggest Obamacare derp storm of the year," Ann Althouse challenged: "Is that the way grown men talk now? In case you're wondering, Urban Dictionary supplies this definition of 'derp' -- with 11,000+ 'up' votes -- from 2005: 'A simple, undefined reply when an ignorant comment or action is made'..." Many words later: "the stupidity is running deep this morning, and even the observers of stupidity are manifesting their stupid idea of superiority by talking stupidly."
Soon enough it became necessary for rightbloggers to acknowledge the New Reality: That Obamacare would free up workers to quit their jobs, which was what was so terrible about it.
Some of the brethren reverted to historical form: Because Obamacare involves subsidies, it's like welfare, and therefore those receiving Obamacare were like the "welfare queens" conservatives have been using as outrage bait for decades. Since Obamacare isn't associated with black people, except for You Know Who, their quivers were missing a few arrows, but still they made a valiant attempt.
"Just as extending unemployment benefits discourages people from taking a job," said Hoppy Kercheval at West Virginia Metro News, "prorating health insurance premium subsides to income will discourage some people from trying to move up the economic ladder." We wonder how many of Kercheval's readers felt a double blush of shame because they were unemployed and had Obamacare coverage. It's like they're ripping off America twice!
Similarly, Arnold Ahlert of FrontPageMag brought up Nancy Pelosi, who years earlier "spoke about musicians and other creative types who could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents" -- but since subsidies were involved, "much of those costs will apparently be borne by those less artistically inclined and/or creative." America, you're paying Obamacare queens to write beat poetry, pop their fingers, and, who knows, maybe cultivate beards.
At Real Clear Politics, Carl M. Cannon told readers Obamacare subsidies would be financed by "Americans who remain in the workforce, most of whom are middle class" and "future generations of Americans" -- that is, one group Republicans hope to win back, and a catchphrase they hope to win them back with. Then Cannon talked about how much he respected Bill Clinton (ha ha) and complained, "for years, it seemed that although Democrats profess to love jobs, they couldn't stand employers. Now they've gone a step further: They don't even favor work."
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...inds_obama.php
right-wing MOFOs are/were/always WRONG.
Here's some context employers and conservatives don't GAF about:
New Gallup Poll Shows 70 Percent of Americans Are Disengaged From Their Jobs
A recent Gallup poll found that 70 percent of American workers are disengaged from their jobs. Of the 100 million people who hold jobs in America, the survey found that 30 million are actively engaged, 50 million are not engaged and 20 million are actively disengaged.
The consequences are many, but Gallup estimates that actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. as much as $550 billion in economic activity each year. The public also suffers immensely as this disengagement will undoubtedly rub off on poor customer service and issues of quality control.
Here's my critical thinking question to disengaged employees: why don't you get out of that job you hate so much and do something you love?
It doesn't seem to matter what industry, profession, occupation, or sport champions choose - the criteria for selection is almost always enjoyment. Champions tend to choose their fields based on pure enjoyment of the activity. Some people say that champions don't pick their field, the field picks them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-...b_3467078.html
ty jobs, ty bosses, ty company cultures, while the bosses and investors take home $Ms.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-10-2014 at 12:33 PM.
You're right. Better give goldman sachs more money to fix that pronto.
Better yet, lets write every American a check for 5,000 to go spend at walmart.
When you don't have enough money it isn't because you don't have a job; it's because you don't have enough welfare.
not every american, just the bottom 50%. every penny would be spent, giving a huge STIMULUS to the economy, unlike the $Ts handed to the financial sector to gamble with.
10Ms of people WITH JOB(S) don't have enough money, so they get humanitarian aid from taxpayers.
Cbo estimate of 2% market growth in the future.
"2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs"
you still believe this Fox/Repug LIE?
CBO's answer was correct, but way too complex for you right-wingnuts.
lol, you still don't get it"2.5 Million People Lose Their Jobs"
you still believe this Fox/Repug LIE?
CBO's answer was correct, but way too complex for you right-wingnuts.
Boutons, does the Obama koolaid flow through the veins in your body?
I get your FALSE OUTRAGE, your KENYAN MUSLIM N!GG@ DERANGEMENT SYNDROME
job killers? all y'all right winger be lookin out for job killers?
Study: Government-By-(Repug)-Crisis Has Cost 750,000 Jobs
According to the report from the Peterson Ins ute for International Economics — led “Flirting With Default: Issues Raised By Debt Confrontations In The United States” — the debt ceiling standoffs of 2011 and 2013, the threat of falling over the fiscal cliff in 2012, the imposition of sequester cuts in March 2013, and the government shutdown in October 2013, had a tangible negative economic effect. Author David J. Stockton, a senior fellow at the Peterson Ins ute, writes that fiscal policy uncertainty caused by the governing crises “depressed the level of real GDP by about one percentage point and correspondingly raised the level of the unemployment rate by a bit more than 1/2 percentage point.”
That translates to a loss of $150 billion per year, and 750,000 jobs.
This is not the first attempt to quantify the damage of the various crises that have paralyzed Washington throughout the Obama administration; in October, Standard & Poor’s estimated that the government shutdown cost the economy $24 billion.
“There is no need for America’s legislators to behave as badly as their counterparts in far poorer and less solidly democratic countries do,” Peterson Ins ute president Adam S. Posen writes in the
report, “and there certainly are significant costs of even threatening to do so.”
http://www.nationalmemo.com/study-go...t-750000-jobs/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
