2.5 million jobs worth of productivity will be lost.

The health care bill didn't address the problem, sadly. It is akin to having brain surgery when you had an ingrown toe nail.

The Dems were so determined to pass a bill, any bill, that they let this monstrosity pass after the death of Ted Kennedy. They knew it was flawed but refused the make any changes in the house because the last thing they could have was a conference bill that would have required another vote. Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I am not sure what you are saying.

 

There is nothing positive about 2.5 million people leaving the workforce. If people leave the workforce to keep government handouts it just adds to the nanny state.

 

I love how the Obama adminstration tried to spin this as a good thing. Yep it's such a great idea to give people an option not to have to work hard for their money or benefits. Why work hard when the government can take the money from someone else and give it to you.

There is nothing positive about 2.5 million people leaving the workforce. If people leave the workforce to keep government handouts it just adds to the nanny state.

 

I love how the Obama adminstration tried to spin this as a good thing. Yep it's such a great idea to give people an option not to have to work hard for their money or benefits. Why work hard when the government can take the money from someone else and give it to you.

 

Not arguing that point. I'm saying that claims SEEM to be that people who are truly wanting to work will not be able to because the jobs will not be there. That's not the case.

Tell me more about this coup that's nearing completion.

 

What do you want to know. The media with European influence crucified our prior President who was generally pretty well respected up until we invaded Iraq. What the European driven coalition failed to mention is that this pissed them off because they had extensive financial and energy interests in Iraq and these hypocrites were more than willing to overlook the reality of Sadaam Hussein's reign of terror lest we forget in his 8 years more than 600,000 people were executed or murdered. Then, it is easy to manipulate minds in the media....if you want the economy to go down, just tell everyone it is going down, and it will...it is called rational expectations. Since the reign of Bill Clinton, we were living in a mortgage bubble, and to burst that, just start telling people the sky is falling and a lot of them will believe it.

 

Then, once you've toppled the previous leadership get in a smooth person who has little known history so there is not a lot of accumulated garbage, a la Jimmy Carter, preach change, etc. accumulate individual voting blocs, gays, liberals, any others that can be picked up and promise them a la Karl Marx that big brother can do a better job of rationing resources so that we the populace can spend our efforts on more noble pursuits and the arts. Now the road to socialism is paved...next step one-party (communist) rule.

 

And we thought it would never happen to us.

Not arguing that point. I'm saying that claims SEEM to be that people who are truly wanting to work will not be able to because the jobs will not be there. That's not the case.

 

That remains to be seen on your point. But you are correct in the fact the CBO did not state 2.5 million jobs would be eliminated. It stated that 2.5 million people would quit working to maintain government aid. Which I don't see how any law can be deemed good if it motivates people to drop out of the workforce. We are trying to grow this economy and it is in a very fragile state. During Obama's presidency we have already seen a record number of people drop out of the workforce, and now we find out it will only get worse due to his healthcare law.

The subsidies will be driving some perverse decision-making.

 

If you are making a bit more than the income ceiling to qualify for a subsidy, you might seek fewer hours in order to get the subsidized premium pricing. I suspect that's where some of the 'job loss' will occur.

 

If you are making just below the income ceiling and you currently qualify for a subsidy, what do you do if you have a chance at a better job but your immediate increase in income isn't enough to make up for the loss of the subsidy?

The subsidies will be driving some perverse decision-making.

 

If you are making a bit more than the income ceiling to qualify for a subsidy, you might seek fewer hours in order to get the subsidized premium pricing. I suspect that's where some of the 'job loss' will occur.

 

If you are making just below the income ceiling and you currently qualify for a subsidy, what do you do if you have a chance at a better job but your immediate increase in income isn't enough to make up for the loss of the subsidy?

 

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. That right there is the problem with our entire welfare system. There is no true incentive to advance if you have to face a short term struggle through that advancement.

Ding Ding Ding we have a winner. That right there is the problem with our entire welfare system. There is no true incentive to advance if you have to face a short term struggle through that advancement.

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

How McDonald's and Wal-Mart Became Welfare Queens - Bloomberg

 

If you want to complain about worker pay start your own thread your not going to ruin another topic with your liberal dodge move. This about the CBO report which has nothing to do with worker compensation.

The subsidies will be driving some perverse decision-making.

 

If you are making a bit more than the income ceiling to qualify for a subsidy, you might seek fewer hours in order to get the subsidized premium pricing. I suspect that's where some of the 'job loss' will occur.

 

If you are making just below the income ceiling and you currently qualify for a subsidy, what do you do if you have a chance at a better job but your immediate increase in income isn't enough to make up for the loss of the subsidy?

 

While it won't end up with a net job loss I suspect there will be people losing their jobs due to not wanting to work when the employer needs them. I need you to work overtime for several weeks and you don't show up you're going to be out of a job real quick. There won't be a net job loss cause I'll just hire someone else willing to work what I need.

The subsidies will be driving some perverse decision-making.

 

If you are making a bit more than the income ceiling to qualify for a subsidy, you might seek fewer hours in order to get the subsidized premium pricing. I suspect that's where some of the 'job loss' will occur.

 

If you are making just below the income ceiling and you currently qualify for a subsidy, what do you do if you have a chance at a better job but your immediate increase in income isn't enough to make up for the loss of the subsidy?

I've said several times in this forum, I had an employee who had to quit for that very reason. And I can't blame her frankly. The system sucks.

If you want to complain about worker pay start your own thread your not going to ruin another topic with your liberal dodge move. This about the CBO report which has nothing to do with worker compensation.

It's all intertwined.

It's all intertwined.

 

Start your own thread. You ruin to many good discussions with your tactic of avoidance to the topic. Do you have thoughts on the fact government is giving incentive to millions of workers not to work?