You create welfare queens everywhere you turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
|
You create welfare queens everywhere you turn.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You can already work at Walmart and be a welfare queen too. What's the difference?
You guys are surreal.
Hello again, Steve:
Surreal.. Is that when you don't BELIEVE your own EYES???? You're sooooo ingrained with right wing thinking, you imagine people on welfare sitting in front of their BIG screen TV, texting on their Obamaphone, and eating lobster on YOUR dime.
You DENY that people who work HARD at minimum wage jobs, like at Walmart or Wendy's ALSO are on food stamps, section 8 housing, and welfare... I guess you LIKE helping Walmart with their payroll... I dunno WHY.
excon
You need to get out more, don't forget your thermal under wear today.
Surreal is ing about needing to create jobs in one breath and cheering disincentives to work in the next. It is not we who can't see that most new healthcare enrollees are to Medicaid. It is not we who can't see unemployment is down largely because so many people gave up looking for work. It is not we who can't see the disconnect between every promise made about this bill, like creating 4 million jobs, "bending the cost curve downward," if you like your plan, your doctor you can keep them - is a total failure. It is not we can't see that disincentivizing work by way of subsidies and penalties is bad for the economy and budget. Even the Chicago Tribune gets it...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
But like I said, you lefties believe in magic and fairy dust. You drank the Koolaid.Quote:
The Congressional Budget Office issued a sobering report this week that projected how many people will choose to work less because of the effects of the Affordable Care Act. CBO predicts that the health care law will shrink the number of hours worked by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs. That's about twice the impact that CBO predicted in 2010, when the law was signed.
That doesn't mean 2 million people will be thrown out of work by Obamacare, as some critics asserted.
It does mean many workers will have less incentive to work. Some will gain welcome flexibility if they have clung to jobs just to keep employer-based health care, they will have access to coverage that's not conditioned on holding a job.
But, and here's where the impact is likely pernicious, some will quit or work less precisely because they'll now qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies under the law. In effect, they'll have a government incentive to be less productive. Some higher-income workers also will have a disincentive higher taxes under Obamacare for providing more labor. That is, a disincentive to work.
Government subsidies that persuade people to be less productive are not healthy for the nation. They're also costly. Which goes to the more alarming news that came out of the CBO this week.
The CBO as close as you'll get in Washington to a nonpartisan source of information released its federal budget projections for the next 10 years. The prospect is bleak:
The agency projects that annual deficits will stabilize through 2017 but then will launch into a long rise. By the most useful measure debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product the CBO sees that number rising from 72.1 percent in 2013 to 79.2 percent by 2024. That would be the highest U.S. debt burden since the years after federal borrowing spiked to fight World War II.
Deficits for the decade from 2015 through 2024 are expected to total $7.9 trillion, or $1.6 trillion more than the CBO last estimated. The agency also projects slow economic growth for the country.
The upshot: Right now the federal government is running annual deficits lower than it did during the first four years of the Obama presidency. But our total debt continues to grow by huge amounts every year. As the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in reaction to the CBO projections, "Our deficit problems are far from solved and highlight the importance of putting the debt on a clear downward path, rather than settling for projection of stability. ... The ideal fiscal plan would work to simultaneously lower debt levels and raise economic output."
To the extent that Obamacare requires billions of dollars for subsidies and also discourages workers from staying in the labor force, it's sure to thwart both of those noble goals.
I live in the barrio, one of my best friends growing up didn't have finished walls in his tiny "bedroom" - don't tell me I need to get out more.Quote:
You need to get out more, don't forget your thermal under wear today.
We have had the minority leader of the House tell us more than once that Obamacare and unemployment benefits allows folks to persue their hobbies . Jay Carney said that 2.5 million Americans leaving the workforce was a good thing, because they would no longer be trapped in a job.
So yeah ;it's not "us " that celebrate unemployment or Obamacare driving even more people out of the work force.
I know a guy who has a pest control business. His accountant advised him not to work so hard and make too much money because he was going to get wacked with taxes . So yeah ... the Obots have built in a bunch of disincentives to work.
it's called 'funemployment '......
'Funemployed' revel in freedom from work - SFGateQuote:
Michael Van Gorkom was laid off by Yahoo in late April. He didn't panic. He didn't rush off to a therapist. Instead, the 33-year old Santa Monica resident discovered that being jobless "kind of settled nicely." Week one: "I thought, 'OK ... I need to send out resumes, send some e-mails, need to do networking"'
Week two: "A little less."
Every week since: "I'm going to go to the beach and enjoy some margaritas."
What most people would call unemployment, Van Gorkom embraced as "funemployment."
While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. These happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s. Some were laid off. Some quit voluntarily, lured by generous buyouts.
Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the "funemployed" do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least until the bank account dries up, they're content living for today. "
Never heard of funemployment? Here's Urban Dictionary's definition: "The condition of a person who takes advantage of being out of a job to have the time of their life. (Example:) I spent all day Tuesday at the pool; funemployment rocks!"
Hello, again:
Here's the deal. Those jobs are NOT coming back. Why NOT enjoy it?
Look. If it were up to ME, I'd hire ALL of 'em to fix our infrastructure... You'd rather let the infrastructure AND the people who can fix it, ROT!
excon
You guys cancelled the party in 1999, for damn near 10 years. If rich guys have partied, so can everybody else and frankly, it's about time Main Street got a break. Get over it! Rich guys, so called job creators (tax dodging, haven creators is more ACCURATE) have enough loot. What?? Trillions ain't enough??
Party poopers!!
Stop stalling on Keystone. Barring a few environmental wackos, everyone is sick of that including Canada, a bunch of Democrats - and even Ed Schultz says build it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Your link further reinforces the need to get the lobbyists out of politics.
I am for Keystone too, when they have a comprehensive emergency plan for when stuff happens. Didn't we learn from Exxon, BP, and that chemical plant that poisoned the water source in West Virginia? Stuff does happen, so while we create profits for private companies, can't we demand safety, AND accountability.
Oopsie!
Pipeline rupture: Alberta resident unaware of 2009 blast - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
Here, you can check if there have been incidents near you:
Pipeline safety incidents - Interactive - CBC.ca
Chicago Oil Spill
texas oil spill history - Bing Images
We have plenty already.
The southern leg is already operational, but I suppose you'd rather transport by rail or truck - or sell it to China.
Who do you think they are going to sell it to in the first place? Why should the tax payer subsidize their profits no matter who the sell it too?
Who Pays for the Keystone XL Pipeline? | Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines
So doing business with our neghbor and creating thousands of jobs - after 2 government reports could find no reason to delay the project - is of no interest to you? Yep, time to consider going on the government teat before there's nothing left.
I know you didn't see my last link I added but taxpayers are paying for building this thing too. No more BS about sucking from a teat taxpayers are paying for.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:27 AM. |