Since the number of jobs are expected to be lost do to ACA the left claims this is good!

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Feb 10, 2014.

  1. PSGator66

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,297
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +674
  2. wygator

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,304
    Likes Received:
    269
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +841
    This is a logical next-step strategy. If they can't improve job numbers, then float the meme that employment is bad. Who really wants to work anyway??

    FREEDOM!!
  3. fredsanford

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,870
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,173
    Dupe thread, debunked, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
  4. PSGator66

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,297
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +674
    Fred - this may be in another thread under different title but debunked? You are amazing!
  5. wgbgator

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,902
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,585
    Yes, debunked. The reports says some people will voluntarily work less, but it also says:


    In other words, there will be a greater demand for labor, meaning more jobs not less.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  6. jimgata

    jimgata Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,535
    Likes Received:
    132
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +716
    Wasn't this report actually referring to the number of hours worked? Obamacare would cause a reduction in the hours worked by employees, that would be the equivalent of 2 1/2 million jobs.. This would not reduce the number of jobs, just the hours and therefore reduce the income and the payroll taxes, state taxes and federal taxes. Take that amount of income out of the economy. it will hurt, not help.
    Much to the dismay of the libs, people will still have to work in order to take care of themselves and their family.
    Side note: a reduction in gainful employment will certainly affect retirement benefits .
  7. PSGator66

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,297
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +674
    But when the left speaks they typically mean something totally different so never take them verbatim but listent to the interpreters - you know the Spin Doctors!
  8. GatorFanCF

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,934
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +842
    Two things are significantly wrong with this:

    1. Remember when 8-10 MILLION people were losing their healthcare because of the stringent requirements of Obamacare. What was the reaction from the Left? Paraphrased "Yes, there will be some disruption but it's not a significant number of people..." Got it - 8 million people are NOT important but losing the equivalent of 2.5 million people's labor is significant. Okay....

    2. This logic comes from the same fine folks (i.e. Pelosi) who claim that increasing the unemployment benefits actually is a boon to the economy. Life is simple when you only look at one half of the equation. If I pay my college aged son to loaf around the house during the summer his economy improves significantly...but, what about the person (or group) who funds the others? Does my money somehow not improve the economy just because it's spent at the Home Depot or put into savings vs. Chik-Fil-a or Chipotle for my son? Taking increasingly more money from taxpayers (or borrowing the same to burden future taxpayers) is a losing proposition. Sadly, it's a long-term loss and politicians rightly bet on us not thinking so far ahead.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. harwil

    harwil Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +135
    Yes, those poor souls whose muse had been arrested by dead end jobs they kept for health care, may leave those awful jobs and free their muses by getting subsidies to pay for Obamacare.Those whose plans costs have increased and those who pay taxes, including those increased by hidden taxes and higher rates will be subsidizing those free spirits who have broken the shackles of uninspiring jobs. So say Pelosi and the socialist Muslim Minnesota congressman on This Week on ABC.
  10. gatorev12

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,601
    Likes Received:
    272
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,376
    The CBO just basically confirmed that Obamacare is a further expansion of the entitlement culture in America. The people "voluntarily choosing not to work"--are likely to be lower-income; an economist's opinion (taken from another thread, but it was published in the WSJ):

    • Like Like x 1
  11. wgbgator

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,902
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,585
    When a wealthy person make a decision to work slightly less to avoid a higher tax bracket (which costs the government money), its a good business decision. When a lower income person makes a choice to work slightly less to achieve a favorable economic outcome (costing the government money) it "fuels entitlement culture."
    • Like Like x 1
  12. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    Of course, that is exactly how some folks reflexively look at it.

    I'd ask this, maybe those less wealthy are improving their economic condition, for instance, by having one parent stay home more with children? Or maybe it's allowing someone to go start that internet business they wanted to. Or maybe they will cut down working a second job to spend more time with their children.
  13. ncbullgator

    ncbullgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,218
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +328
    Except you conveniently forgot who is left to pay for that person's health care when they cut back. It's the spouse or the taxpayer of course.

    You have figured that out haven't you?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  14. gatorpa

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,018
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +308
    A logical analysis......
  15. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,639
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    1001 Rockdale Blvd. Miami, OK. 74354
    Ratings Received:
    +2,152
    It is starting to get very difficult to juggle all of these points.

    People are choosing to work less because they don't have to.

    All of those hours that people aren't working just disappear because there are not any jobs and we have to extend unemployment benefits.

    But so many jobs don't pay a living wage we have to raise the minimum wage even though people are choosing to work less.

    But at least we can keep our doctor! Period!
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. gatorpa

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,018
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +308
    When that rich person decides to decrease his tax contribution to the Gov it is a wise choice (he's already paying taxes). When a person who already can't support themselves and relies upon the money taken from the labor of another, then decides to work less than 40 hrs a week to continue to gain from the gravy train it's selfish and greedy.

    It's not Gov money its the taxpayers money.
  17. gatorpa

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,018
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +308
    I say we all cut our hours back to 30 something per week, since its so good for the economy. Just think how it will lower the tax bills of those of us who work!
  18. asuragator

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    4,090
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,081
    Except the report didn't say it was people who couldn't "support themselves."
  19. gatorpa

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,018
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +308
    Sorry JDR, if you are on SNAP, Medicaid, SEC 8 or relying on a GOV subsidy to by health ins you are not supporting yourself.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  20. wgbgator

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,902
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,585
    You can make up to 400% of the poverty line and get a ACA subsidy. So that's not quite true. But more to the point if anyone who receives tax breaks or subsidies from the government cant support themselves, then there are very few people or corporations that can claim to do so.

Share This Page