Democrat Party redefines work

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Feb 8, 2014.

  1. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,523
    Likes Received:
    4,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,058
    utterly absurd

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/370553/party-less-work-rich-lowry

    From the article"

    The Congressional Budget Office released a new analysis of the economic effects of the health-care law that estimates that it will reduce the number of workers, in effect, by 2.5 million in 2024.


    This unleashed a torrent of arguments from the Democrats implicitly denigrating the value of work. Perhaps not since Southern “fire-eaters” attacked Northern “wage slavery” in the mid-19th century has a good honest day’s work been talked about so dismissively.

    The old jobs crisis was people not having jobs; the new jobs crisis is people having to work. The party devoted to combating inequality is now blithely unconcerned about a law discouraging people — especially people down the income scale — from earning more. So much for its championing of economic mobility.

    White House press secretary Jay Carney declared the CBO report a validation of the law: “We noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams. This CBO report bears that out.”
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ncbullgator

    ncbullgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,214
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +320
    Liberals have always been about demanding someone pay their bills so they won't have to work hard. Whether it's the government worker mentality, the union demands for early retirement or the welfare parents who can't seem to hold a job. Now they will have their neighbors pay their health care bills. I asked the question six years ago when the Marxist got elected, "Why work hard anymore?" I was spot on. Good thread.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Wish I would have said that Wish I would have said that x 1
  3. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Those who immigrated to the US in the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s had no backstop. They were self reliant. They had to work to eat. There was no safety net other than perhaps the charity of their neighbors or church. Where have we gone astray?
  4. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,523
    Likes Received:
    4,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,058
    it started with the 60's and the if it feels good do it crowd- then we opened our doors to so many from socialist countries who while they wanted more freedom also wanted more guvment control than what we had in America- the Democrat party realized this early on and really started pushing their progressive movement-they were smart and knew it could not happen all at once so they took it an inch at a time until we have what we have today
  5. fredsanford

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,868
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173
    So now the GOP is against entrepreneurship if Obama is for it.

    I wish he'd come out for food so pubs would starve to death to spite him.
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Boring Boring x 1
  6. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,523
    Likes Received:
    4,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,058
    the ONLY thing prezBO is for is increasing the size of guvment and his power
  7. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,783
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,853
    What, in the flaming hell, does entrepreneurship have to do with this pablum about "job lock"?

    How, exactly, do you propose anybody that "unlocks" themselves into unemployment in exchange for a uber-subsidy and various other welfare programs is going to start a business? That takes, y'know, capital. Not to mention a sense of dignity and wherewithal not likely found in anyone who looks at having a job as just the thing they are "trapped" in.
  8. g8orbill

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    70,523
    Likes Received:
    4,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,058
    I doubt shab did anything but read the thread title
  9. ncbullgator

    ncbullgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,214
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +320
    I thought you hated entrepreneurs. You know, those greedy and cheating business people. Afterall, it was the government that invented the internet and all of those life saving drugs.

    Maybe you should ask yourself how many goverment employees leave their overpaid careers to start a business? Other than to double dip ripping off the taxpayers with government contracts.

    Keep tryin Shabby.
  10. kygator

    kygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +219
    White House economic adviser Jason Furman made an inapt comparison. “Getting rid of Social Security and Medicare would cause more 95-year-olds to work,” he said. “You wouldn’t judge whether Social Security or Medicare are good or bad based on what they do to labor supply.”

    Wow...how can a White House economic adviser be so lacking in common sense?
  11. 108

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,840
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,217
    I'm confused what the argument is here

    Do you guys prefer that individuals have less freedom to change career plans due to health insurance concerns?
  12. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,783
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,853
    I prefer that people have jobs. Losing your job is not freedom. I thought, I thought for an instant that this line of demagoguery would prove so shameless, so undignified, that it would be a moment of clarity for even a great number of Democrats. More fool I.

    You are "locked" in your job "just" so you can afford your home, your clothes, your food, your entertainment, etc, aren't you? Aren't we attacking the basic premise that you have to work to have the things you need and want in life?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. 108

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    17,840
    Likes Received:
    313
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,217
    "The estimated reduction [in CBO's projections of hours worked] stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers "choose" to supply rather than a net drop in businesses demand for labor. [...]"

    That doesn't sound like "losing" your job, it sounds like more freedom to choose your path
  14. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,783
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,853
    Lost cause, utterly lost. A couple million people might be able to just stop working and sit on their ass eating cheese poofs so they don't have to eat the nuclear healthcare costs imposed by the government and can let the one's still self-respecting enough to work pay for it? AWESOME NEWS! Forward!
  15. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,788
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,781
    As I noted in the other thread about the CBO, ACA and jobs multiple Republicans have previously come out in favor of finding a way so that people did not have to be locked into a specific job simply because of health insurance. Now that it looks like the ACA may accomplish it, they are suddenly against it.
  16. MichiGator2002

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,783
    Likes Received:
    423
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,853
    There are plenty of ways to approach portability without unapologetically endorsing people just getting out completely and living off the rest like a remora. People have cracked the code. Obamacare was the rubicon to cross. As a single person, why bust ass 40+ a week in the $40k range to pay your way on health, food, shelter, with few if any forms of "assistance", when you can nibble around the edges of part time unskilled work and $15k a year and get snap and welfare and a subsidy on ObamaCare down to a couple bucks a month?
  17. rivergator

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,788
    Likes Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,781
    It's hardly simply living off the government. Before, someone with an existing condition would have to stay employed simply to make sure he had insurance. Now that he can get insurance elsewhere, the decision to work is based on whether he needs to work, not whether he needs insurance.

    Like I said, Republicans were for this at one time:

  18. ncgatr1

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,823
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +396
    I have never heard of this, and if this is true I'm sure that you twisted what was actually said and what was meant. The ACA has much bigger issues which face all of us. Too bad they are way down the list on your proACA healthcare arguments.
  19. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345

    Lol... Jay Carney - talking about "the law" as if Obama knows what that really means... Meanwhile, the EPA is busy illegally 'writing legislation' on greenhouse gas emissions with impunity. It seems enforcing regulations is just to boring for them now that Obama owns the law... err... Holder.
  20. gatordowneast

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Plenty of people (most) have to work to pay their mortgage, rent, utilities and eat. The portability issue was addressed years ago through something called Cobra. When I quit my job to start my own company, I was on Cobra for a month or two before we lined up Health Insurance. But I saw no subsidies from the government and now, what Obamacare does, is give subsidies for those who may want "flexibility" or a "sabbatical" and the rest of us are paying the tab for that option.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page