CBO DIRECTOR says Obamaocare would reduce employment by 800,000 workers
-
I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich.
And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address.
But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up.
I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich.
And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address.
But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up.
Umm. A lot of folks will need to pick up an extra part time job because they are being told that they have to buy healthcare insurance or they will get fined!!
And if employers dont want to give every mininum wage earner who works for them a raise, they will simply just cut them loose or make them part time workers. Either way everyone will have to buy health care insurance even if they have to work 3 part time jobs to pay for it.
Does it sound fair to the average Joe who only earns no more than $10 bucks an hour to tell them they have to buy something when everything in their world is going up due to inflation and devaluation of our dollar. And dont tell me these folks will get it for free; because everyone knows that somebody is going to pay for it.
-
Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”
Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”...
**************************************
so the director admits that the hc law WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, will DECREASE the work force then,
by 800.00 jobs, instead of CREATING JOBS.
What the hell are you arguing about? The effect of the bill, in all sorts of parts, does NOT do what it says it will do.
Very few Dems who voted for it, READ it.
It's a bad, very, very bad bill. And our country cannot afford it, by anyone's estimation, who has any honesty about it.
Even Obamao admits some parts have to be fixed or eliminated.
The entire bill is unConstitutional, so much so, that the left is trying desperately to stack the deck on the U.S.
Supreme Court by trying to intimidate a conservative Justice to not be a part of the vote. Hah.
Smaller "labor supply" means fewer jobs = Obamaocare is a gigantic farce that will not be funded.
-
No, Cal. There's a difference between the labor supply and net job creation. They're two different subjects. This is the whole point, which you're missing.
-
Oh, stop your quibbling.
Labor supply is creating employment for people, right?
Or not?
What's the freakin definition of "is", now ???
-
No, that's not what the labor supply is.
-
Then you should have started your own thread.
Go talk to the CBO director if ya don't like his message.
I TOLD ya that the entire Obamaocare bill was UNConstitutional. But no-o-o-o-o-oo-,
you wouldn't listen. "Can you hear me now?"
-
Um, sure.
(Backs away slowly.)
-
I'd be a little skeptical of that job windfall as it looks like lots of peoples care is going to cost more forcing them to stay in or return to the labor pool.
We'll see.
WSS
-
As long as we understand what the CBO is saying, you can be skeptical all you like. Of course, your skepticism is based on your hunch rather than any evidence or data, while the CBO's figures are based on dozens of people crunching numbers for months, but I can't do anything to make you value the latter more than the former, even though you should.
As long as we know changes to the labor supply are different than job creation/elimination, I'm good.
Yay.
-
I admit it still seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk,
and what the definition of "is" is.
And I don't think it's my fault.
And, I think that if Heck won't take the bet HE again initiated, because of the tomatoes
clause, then he's a stimply, oogly-moogly, hopscotch-skipping, egg-laying doosel-wug.
-
Cal, you're priceless.
You post something the CBO said about the health care bill because you think it's devastating to the liberal cause. Then you say I'll probably ignore it because it's devastating to the liberal cause.
I post that you don't understand what the man is saying, and then explain what he's saying. Suddenly, the CBO man you were just touting and daring me to recognize is saying something that "seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk, and what the definition of "is" is."
And it's not your fault that you didn't know what he meant.
And for the millionth time, I'll admit I'm ashamed to point out that an idiot doesn't know anything.
-
Nonetheless the report is based on too many ifs to use as a selling point.
IMO.
WSS
-
Then why do it at all?
The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say.
Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out.
-
Heck translation:
"The only good evidence, is the evidence that is *Tweaked and Fixed* to say what WE want it to say."
-
Heck translation:
"The only good evidence, is the evidence that is *Tweaked and Fixed* to say what WE want it to say."
-
Cal, what would you like changes in the labor supply to mean, other than what changes in the labor supply mean? You're not helping yourself here.
Look, I'll give you the Wiki definition of labor supply. It's a lot like the one I gave.
"In mainstream economic theories, the supply of labor is the number of total hours that workers wish to work at a given real wage rate."
It's not a measure of the total number of jobs in the economy, is it?
And again, I apologize to everyone.
-
Then why do it at all?
The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say.
Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out.
Then why do it at all?
The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say.
Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out.
Of course I haven't done that here.
But why?
Well two years ago we made predictions about the improvement of the Browns based on this and that and speculated for a long time.
If you don't like 'em the variables killed those prognostications and naysayes said a ha!!
Politics ain't a lot different.
Hey if healthcare is so much more affordable that a bunch of people will quit their jobs great.
I'm self employed and damn tired of getting it in the ass while others skate.
Other predictions based on real number might see a different vision.
One mans campaign slogan is another mans, uh, well, campaign slogan.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
This is a pretty lousy comparison, and a pretty lousy argument.
For one, these aren't campaign slogans, and this isn't politics. These are laws and numbers and math, crunched by geeks. The CBO's design and mission is to be non-partisan, and they do as good a job as you can do in Washington. Comparing it to the predictions of the Browns success is also ridiculous.
Also, who told you the Browns were going to be good?
-
Then why do it at all?
The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say.
Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out.
Of course I haven't done that here.
But why?
Well two years ago we made predictions about the improvement of the Browns based on this and that and speculated for a long time.
If you don't like 'em the variables killed those prognostications and naysayes said a ha!!
Politics ain't a lot different.
Hey if healthcare is so much more affordable that a bunch of people will quit their jobs great.
I'm self employed and damn tired of getting it in the ass while others skate.
Other predictions based on real number might see a different vision.
One mans campaign slogan is another mans, uh, well, campaign slogan.
WSS
Of course I haven't done that here.
But why?
Well two years ago we made predictions about the improvement of the Browns based on this and that and speculated for a long time.
If you don't like 'em the variables killed those prognostications and naysayes said a ha!!
Politics ain't a lot different.
Hey if healthcare is so much more affordable that a bunch of people will quit their jobs great.
I'm self employed and damn tired of getting it in the ass while others skate.
Other predictions based on real number might see a different vision.
One mans campaign slogan is another mans, uh, well, campaign slogan.
WSS
Ditto!
-
Heck - the Director And Campbell AND Ryan are talking about fewer jobs. 800.000 fewer jobs.***********************************************Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?”Director [Douglas] Elmendorf: “Yes.”...[…]Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate,that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's160 million full-time people working in '20-'21.That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct?Director Elmendorf:Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade. Half a percent of that is 800,000.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login