# New CBO report is devastating for Obamacare



## Remodeling Maidiac (Feb 4, 2014)

CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post


Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 4, 2014)

.

NO one can claim to be surprised.

.


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 4, 2014)

I don't think anything can destroy Obamacare.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 4, 2014)

A lot of people have learned the hard way that Obamacare is bad.   Many have been warning about this from the start.    The costs are ridiculous and less people will be covered.   Because many hospitals and doctors won't accept Obamacare patients, less will have access to quality care.   Only a liberal would call that success.

So, less people covered, fewer getting quality care and cost up all the way around.   And liberals refuse to repeal it.   Why?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Feb 4, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> I don't think anything can destroy Obamacare.



Don't think anything needs to really. It is effectively killing itself.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 4, 2014)

All of us knew what this bill would do the moment it was passed. Nobody believed us. This just adds to the outrage.


----------



## Steven_R (Feb 4, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anything can destroy Obamacare.
> ...



The key is once Obamacare hits the wall and destroys the private insurance and medical communities in the process, then what? The answer is Congress bringing on Single Payer, you know, because people will demand Congress "do something."

Obamacare was designed to fail and take the medical industry as we knew it with it and set the table for government administered health care.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 4, 2014)

I don't think the CBO report addresses any of the really major ACA deficits so I am just posting to subscribe.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 4, 2014)

What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 4, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?



This is what you get when the GOP decided to not do anything about a very real problem when it had the chance to do so.  The GOP knew damn well what the Democrats were going to do about health care when given a chance, and the GOP still chose to do nothing.

We were sold down the river into slavery by the GOP.  Reap the whirlwind, rubes!

We are now on our way to single payer health care.  When ObamaCare flails and fails, the people will cry out for UHC, and they will get it.  In our lifetime.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 4, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?


Good question. They will pay for this in both the 2014 and 2016 elections.


----------



## Bombur (Feb 4, 2014)

Linking health insurance to low end employment is a recipe for disaster. It hasn't been working for a long time now.


----------



## rdean (Feb 4, 2014)

Oh my Gawd.  

This is disasterous.

This is horrible.  

I better read about it to see exactly what is being said by the CBO.

The report also reduces CBO's original projection of 7 million people signed up for private health insurance through the state and federal exchanges by the end of 2014 down to 6 million people insured by the end of the year. Medicaid enrollment projections were reduced from 9 million people to 8 million people.

"Over time, more people are expected to respond to the new coverage options, so enrollment is projected to increase sharply in 2015 and 2016," the report said.

* the report said decreased hours will be the choice of workers, not employers.*

Health law could mean fewer full-time workers, CBO says


&#8212; The ACA is cheaper than it expected.
&#8212; It will "markedly increase" the number of Americans with health insurance.
&#8212; The risk-adjustment provisions, which Congressional Republicans want to overturn as a "bailout" of the insurance industry, will actually turn a profit to the U.S. Treasury. 

The CBO projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.
As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news

-----------------------

Whew, for a second, I thought these right wingers weren't full of shit.  Glad I was wrong.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



Are you serious?

The GOP was flatly ignored. Bypassed. Overridden. They had zero power to stop this law. It was the rank partisanship employed by the Democrats that got us in this mess, and now you want to blame this on the GOP? Let's make one thing clear, they didn't pass the law. They couldn't stop the law. They have tried to repeal the law, but Democrats would have nothing of it. 

Why are you blaming them? They've introduced numerous alternatives to Obamacare since 2007, g5? This is an absolutely moronic statement from you.


----------



## bendog (Feb 4, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Linking health insurance to low end employment is a recipe for disaster. It hasn't been working for a long time now.



Well, if Dean's LA times link turns out to be an accurate prediction, lower paid workers may work fewer hours, but in effect see a pay raise in the form of HC benefits, and thereby have more money to spend on goods and services, which was the intent.

It still seems to me that the dems built a Golden Gate bridge to span a stream, but as G5000 posts, the gop has only itself to blame for not addressing the issue, and instead passing the Medicare drug benefit, cutting taxes for no reason and wandering off into Iraq.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



So you are blaming republicans for this somehow?

LOL. Its ALL the Democrats plan, the president's plan. 

Its like blaming the people who didn't want to beef up a side-rail along a cliff when the person punching through it was doing 110 mph, drunk, and snorting cocaine off the dashboard.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 4, 2014)

Bombur said:


> Linking health insurance to low end employment is a recipe for disaster. It hasn't been working for a long time now.



The CBO disagrees with you.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 4, 2014)

bendog said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Linking health insurance to low end employment is a recipe for disaster. It hasn't been working for a long time now.
> ...



Thank you.  I was wondering how the Obamabots would try and spin this news to make it sound like this is a good thing.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



Oh puh-leeeeeze...


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Feb 4, 2014)

Now right wingers believe the CBO? I guess we still are up jobs since the CBO projected the Obama stimulus created 3.5 million jobs.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Feb 4, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Now right wingers believe the CBO? I guess we still are up jobs since the CBO projected the Obama stimulus created 3.5 million jobs.



Terrible spin. Diversion fail


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue

-Geaux

Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's healthcare law will reduce American workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs in 2017, the Congressional Budget Office said on Tuesday, prompting Republicans to paint the law as bad medicine for the U.S. economy.


----------



## Clementine (Feb 4, 2014)

Are there still any liberals denying that Obamacare kills jobs?     

This was predicted before they passed Obamacare and they didn't care then.   Even now that damage has been done and more damage will be done, the Dems still won't repeal.   Many of them are actually trying to run from Obama as they push for re-election.   I guess they hope that people are so stupid that they'll forget the job-killing policy they all shoved through.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 4, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



It's the only thing that makes sense...
If they didn't know it would be this bad then they are incompetent or worse...
It had to be by design because this law is a disaster.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

Why? 

Do you care?


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Why?
> 
> Do you care?



The less people working full time will not only hurt them but it will be a blow to the economy. The less you make, the less stuff you can buy.  So, yes I care, since I live in this country and would like for everyone that wants a job to be able to get one.


----------



## Howey (Feb 4, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> ...



Another misinterpreted CBO study. You guys do this a lot! It's like you (collectively) read up to the AHA! point and then skip reading the rest. Not so amazingly, the same piece explained why.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-million-jobs/



> Here we go again. During the 2012 campaign, The Fact Checker had to repeatedly explain that the Congressional Budget Office never said that the Affordable Care Act killed 800,000 jobs by 2021. Now, the CBO has released an updated estimate, nearly the triple the size of the earlier one: 2.3 million in 2021....
> 
> The Fact Checker takes no position on the implications of the CBOs analysis. Some might believe that the overall impact of the health law on employment is bad because it would be encouraging people  some 2.3 million  not to work. Indeed, the decline in the workforce participation rate has been of concern to economists, as the baby boom generation leaves the work force, and the health-care law appears to exacerbate that trend.
> 
> ...


I can't wait for the day the right actually starts htinking for itself, although I doubt that'll happen.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

^^^^LMAO^^^^

It is what it is. Cruz and just about all of America were right. Obamacare is an economic disaster

-Geaux


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Why?
> 
> Do you care?



Fewer people working means the economy suffers since they won't have money to buy stuff.  They won't be able to pay taxes that all the liberals want to fund science, education and infrasture and hundreds of government programs

I believe that everyone that wants to work should be able to find a full time job.  Since I live in this country, I would like to see the economy improve.

Why don't you care?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



Words are confusing things to conservatives.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 4, 2014)

rdean said:


> Oh my Gawd.
> 
> This is disasterous.
> 
> ...



thx for the dem. talking points....their choice,  why yes, when there aren't any hours or jobs for them I guess they have a choice,  maybe pelosi was right, they can all follow their muse and become writers and artists becasue they have health care. 

then again the cbo said that 30 million people would still be without HC, so this was all for what?


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

NTG said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue
> ...



This is what I got from your link.



> We're unable to locate the page you requested.
> The page may have moved or may no longer be available.
> We want to help you find what you're looking for. Here are some suggestions:


----------



## Trajan (Feb 4, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Now right wingers believe the CBO? I guess we still are up jobs since the CBO projected the Obama stimulus created 3.5 million jobs.



we did didn't beleive them when they agreed with obama for a nano second that obamacare would cost less than a trillion, so yea maybe you have a point, or that we'd be able to keep our doctors and plans......


----------



## Trajan (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



when they did they have this chance again?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



No, idiot.  I meant do you care why people are projected to leave the workforce, according to the report? 

Do you know? Do you care?


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> NTG said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



The questions asked were "Why?" and "Do you care?" and I answered the questions by saying "yes I care" and gave my reason why. 
Pretty basic stuff and I hope that clarifies your confusion.


----------



## Rozman (Feb 4, 2014)

WH sends out a few flunky's to say that this is a good thing...


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 4, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: *Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post*
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



Yes, it really is and yes we really have. People were into hope and change and denial.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



What say you? 

Do you care?

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit. 

Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com

Good news, bitches. Good news.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 4, 2014)

Rozman said:


> WH sends out a few flunky's to say that this is a good thing...



It has to even be hard on the spinners to keep a straight face. I am more sad, than mad. It is a great loss to our once proud country.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > NTG said:
> ...



Your link worked fine. I was referring to this one  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-million-jobs/


----------



## Trajan (Feb 4, 2014)

obamacare was supposed to create jobs, thats what he said....*shrugs*

I don't see how depressing economic output is a good thing, taxes, fica etc...hello.


----------



## AquaAthena (Feb 4, 2014)

More on the CBO announcement today:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzcFQerjnDY]2/4/14 CBO: Obamacare will cost 2.3 million jobs by 2021 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Then why didn't you ask that dipshit?


----------



## boedicca (Feb 4, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.





Except for when they are blaming the GOP and Fox News for fomenting a Faux Scandal about ObamaCare.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



I did. Just not very clearly. My bad. You are still an idiot, though.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

rdean said:


> Oh my Gawd.
> 
> This is disasterous.
> 
> ...



The workers quit going to work because the government is buying their votes with welfare... aka..Obamacare. Another example how lazy and pathetic our society is becoming. 

The government will pay them to stay at home.

Nanny state

-Geaux


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit.
> 
> Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com
> 
> Good news, bitches. Good news.



Not worth 2 million jobs there sparky 

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit.
> ...



Sparky?

If you are going to be condescending, please try to be accurate. The report did not say we were losing jobs. 

You might try reading it. Then commenting. It works better that way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

william the wie said:


> I don't think the CBO report addresses any of the really major ACA deficits so I am just posting to subscribe.



It said that the insurance provisions increase the deficit by $1.4 trillion. 

Don't worry though, it will degrease the deficit, somehow.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



Fuck off, asshole. You fucking supported this shit, you own it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

rdean said:


> Oh my Gawd.
> 
> This is disasterous.
> 
> ...



Congratulations, you have won a lifetime supply of KoolAid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

bendog said:


> Bombur said:
> 
> 
> > Linking health insurance to low end employment is a recipe for disaster. It hasn't been working for a long time now.
> ...



The intent was to decrease full time employment?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Now right wingers believe the CBO? I guess we still are up jobs since the CBO projected the Obama stimulus created 3.5 million jobs.



You want me to dig through the numbers and point out why the CBO is underestimating the negative impacts?


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 4, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



so remember before obamacare was actually lost and dems kept quoting the CBO, as a reliable source.  CBO says this, and the CBO says that.  The CBO says obamcare will pay for itself.   Well something happened. We launched it and are now seeing what actually happens.  And what they are telling us now is the democrats lied.   lets see them spin their way out of this one.

And oh yea, the tea party was right.  Where they ever so right


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 4, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...




The republicans are to blame for a bill that was passed solely by democrats? Not one single Republican voted for it. Not one single Republican had any input on it.

The argument that the Republicans did not create their own bill is ignorant and beyond stupid. They never had the votes at anytime in the last 20 years to pass a health care bill they would support.

One does not create a bill the rank and file will not support nor do they do it just because the other party might.

The American voter is to blame for Obama care as well as the Democrats. But being an Obama fluffer you try to claim republicans are to blame for a solely democratic bill.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

NTG said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue
> ...



Gee, I wonder what the CBO actually said that provoked that rant from WaPo.



Higher taxes for the working poor and middle class.
Incentives for  people opt out of getting  raise in order to avoid higher insurance premiums and deductibles.
Lower wages.
A measurable increase in the number of people not working at all in order to take advantage of free stuff.
Incentives for employers to not hire more people.
A disparate impact on poor people, aka minorities.
You are right, I see no reason to see this as a bad thing, no one cares about poor black people.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

How do you like the reaction to your comments? These nutters think you love you some Obama. They really believe that the GOP has nothing to do with the law that we ended up with. Isn't it great!

Do you think even one of these geniuses will read up on this report? Will any of them get beyond the headline? That would be a welcome change, wouldn't it?


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> [MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]
> 
> How do you like the reaction to your comments? These nutters think you love you some Obama. They really believe that the GOP has nothing to do with the law that we ended up with. Isn't it great!
> 
> Do you think even one of these geniuses will read up on this report? Will any of them get beyond the headline? That would be a welcome change, wouldn't it?



The pubs are idiots too. 

Should of listened to Cruz and the majority of the American people.

-Geaux


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit.
> 
> Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com
> 
> Good news, bitches. Good news.



Want to know the difference between this nutter and everyone who is defending Obamacare?

I read the actual budget report, not the LA Times. It starts talking about how "wonderful" Obamacare is for poor people on page 117, you should look at it.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf


----------



## TooTall (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It is not possible to determine what you meant to say, and only a fool would think otherwise.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit.
> ...



You did? Cool. 

How many jobs did it say we are going to lose on account of the ACA?


----------



## realinvestment (Feb 4, 2014)

[/QUOTE]The key is once Obamacare hits the wall and destroys the private insurance and medical communities in the process, then what? The answer is Congress bringing on Single Payer, you know, because people will demand Congress "do something."
[/QUOTE]

As an employer, I say the sooner the better.  We are just fed up with the effort and cost to administer health insurance to our employees, often having to renegotiate a plan every couple of years.  Employees pay for their own food, homes, cars, life insurance...why not health insurance.  We'll gladly pass on the savings as a pay increase.

If we got rid of this distraction, we could spend more time on our primary business of making things, rather than worry about being an expert in health insurance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Did you read the CBO report? Can you show me where in that report it says "less people working full time" ? or that people who "wants a job" can not get one?



Yes, I can.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



A sure sign of an idiot is being unable to accept the concession of his opponent. I just admitted that I did not get my meaning across well. Your response is to tell me...again...that I did not get my meaning across well. Congratulations on your complete lack of class.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



There are jobs which will be vacant. What's so hard to understand about that? Workers will leave jobs in order to keep Obama welfare to pay for healthcare they may not want or need.

What could go wrong?

-Geaux


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



It didn't, it said there was no way to accurately predict the negative impact of all the various factors on the supply and demand of labor. It did, however, point out that most of the negative impact would be on poor people.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hmmm.....unemployment rate at 7%. 

Jobs open up for people looking. 

How horrible! I can't take it!

The rest of what you said was jibberish. Want to try again?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Are you really this stupid?

Obiecare is a weight on every future employee's neck from now on because the government has dictated that cost to be paid by employers. So employers must begin looking at hiring knowing going in that this employee will now cost them a certain amount before he/she does a moments work. So now not only does an employer need to make sure the job the person performs is worth the money but if their healthcare is worth the new expense.

The answer in lower paying jobs is they are not worth the expense. The employer will pay over time to people he knows can do the job. The new people will be put out to pasture and the business won't grow because of it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 4, 2014)

AzMike said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



No. Not every employer. Please learn.


----------



## Antares (Feb 4, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Nope, YOU need to learn.....a terrible crash is coming for your side very soon kid....you are NOT going to like Nov 2014.


----------



## Katzndogz (Feb 4, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



You misunderstand liberals.  They believe that even those who don't work at all should be given enough money to buy whatever they want.


----------



## Meister (Feb 4, 2014)

rdean said:


> Oh my Gawd.
> 
> This is disasterous.
> 
> ...


I bet you and those wingnuts who thanked your ill thought out post never did even think about the damage it will cost our economy with less hours.  You and the other nuts have drank the Kool-Aid and will follow your Pied Piper right over the cliff.  Fools....every one of you.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 4, 2014)

I think the way to bet is that the usually left leaning CBO is wearing its rose colored glasses as usual.


----------



## rdean (Feb 4, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> ...


----------



## rdean (Feb 4, 2014)

Meister said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Oh my Gawd.
> ...



From idiots who believe no minimum wage and no benefits is a recipe for economic success.


----------



## Mr. H. (Feb 4, 2014)

rdean said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Punk ass ******.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...



Ooh! A prediction! I love those! A terrible crash is coming!!!!

I especially love the race-by-race breakdown on the election. And only 9 months away! 

You obviously have not been paying attention. Obama is planning to ruin the economy....but not until after he leaves office. He will successfully fool most of America by overseeing a growing economy for the rest of his term. Then...BOOM! The other shoe will drop.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



A growing economy? LMAO... Hey, like saying the Denver Broncos mounted a comeback after scoring 8.....

A growing economy is relative

-Geaux


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Don't you wish you could say that the economy was shrinking? This has to be hard for you.


----------



## Geaux4it (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Like a fine wine, it takes time. Obama still has (3) years left to screw up a sure thing. Yea, the economy is improving.. So is the temperature in the midwest. Instead of -15 below its only only -3 degrees below..  

-Geaux


----------



## TooTall (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You conceded that you weren't clear and and called me an idiot for not being able to  understand what you meant to say. However, I do apologize for calling an ignorant piece of dog squeeze a dipshit.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



No. I called you an idiot for your inability to understand that which you are commenting on.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 5, 2014)

Geaux4it said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



You can keep hoping!


----------



## hortysir (Feb 5, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...



You are, ordinarily, a voice of reason in a room full of "sky-is-falling" idiots but your post doesn't make sense.
Republicans tried their collective asses off, in vain, to suggest real changes but were met with locked doors, darkened halls, and dead microphones.
There could have been compromise but it wasn't the (R) side of the aisle that wasn't willing to budge.

We are now on our way to a successful Cloward/Piven strategy goal.
We will overload our welfare system when these millions of jobless people are forced into state-run Medicaid and/or any number of state or federally-run welfare programs.


BTW:
Someone, earlier, mentioned insurance companies being hurt.
How?
There are millions of new customers that, before the ACA, were never interested in purchasing insurance are now forced to buy it.
Sounds like a business boom to me, not a insurance job killer


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 5, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



Remember they were victims also:  of corporate insurance lobbyists
interfering with their plans for singlepayer health care and creating this mess.

The reason they won't align with conservatives against the ACA
is they want to push for singlepayer to replace it, not free market health care.

Both seem to be waiting on the other party's plans to fail,
thinking they can "use that" to push THEIR way as the solution.

so in the meantime the American taxpayers are held hostage
with a gun to our heads, loaded with mandates under federal penalties and deadlines,
threatening to pull the trigger before we can remove those mandates from the equation. 

Fighting over a loaded gun, someone please remove the bullets before any more shots fire.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I can say it, if I use the same math you use to call spending more money a cut.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 5, 2014)

hortysir said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Most of those new customers already had insurance, the rest are still waiting for something they can afford.


----------



## Trajan (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



if I recall correctly, the jobs 'created' in 2013 were less than 2012, and the gdp avg. was lower as well....*shrugs* you tell me


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 5, 2014)

Trajan said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Ahhhh, but skewed numbers should be renamed to screwed numbers!


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You go ahead and run with this "growing economy" and the ACA......it will be fun to watch.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 5, 2014)

g5000 said:


> This is what you get w*hen the GOP decided to not do anything about a very real problem when it had the chance to do so. * The GOP knew damn well what the Democrats were going to do about health care when given a chance, and the GOP still chose to do nothing.
> 
> We were sold down the river into slavery by the GOP.  Reap the whirlwind, rubes!
> 
> We are now on our way to single payer health care.  When ObamaCare flails and fails, the people will cry out for UHC, and they will get it.  In our lifetime.



Oh really?

1) What do you consider the biggest health-care challenge today?



> It is vitally important that health care be accessible and affordable for every American. Rising health-care costs have too often taken patients out of the health-care decision-making process. Today, too many lawsuits without merit are being filed against doctors and hospitals, forcing them to practice defense medicine, driving good doctors out of practice, and increasing health-care costs for everyone.


George W. Bush's Health-Care Plans


Q: Would you be open to the ideal of a national health care plan?



> BUSH: Im absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I dont want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan, and fortunately it failed. *I trust people; I dont trust the federal government. I dont want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody.*



Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17, 2000
George W. Bush on Health Care


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 5, 2014)

you know what is really sad.  people are actually defending obamacare because it is a liberally introduced policy and god knows, even though it doesn't work we have to fluff it up to look like a success.   face facts, it doesn't work.  and what we should be doing is putting relentless pressure on politicians to fix the damn thing.   amazing how people will let the government fuck the people just so "their side"  doesn't lose face.    what a world we've become.


----------



## Antares (Feb 5, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> you know what is really sad.  people are actually defending obamacare because it is a liberally introduced policy and god knows, even though it doesn't work we have to fluff it up to look like a success.   face facts, it doesn't work.  and what we should be doing is putting relentless pressure on politicians to fix the damn thing.   amazing how people will let the government fuck the people just so "their side"  doesn't lose face.    what a world we've become.



They MUST protect the King.


----------



## hortysir (Feb 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



They'll be waiting a long time, then 

How can someone, living paycheck to paycheck, afford a new monthly expense in the hundreds?
:noidea:


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Ahhh *perfection!*

Do You Know, Do You Care
You said you would, you didn't and I wanna know why
Don't make  excuses
You promised and you better explain
Tho' I don't know what the use is

You said you could, you could now why did you lie?
You made it look so easy
You did it, why do it, what was your point?
Laughing while you tease us

I said "I did, I shouldn't 'cos the magic will go"
It happened once before
You'll see it, you'll steal it and take it away
And then come back for more

Don't say you weren't, you were 'cos I saw you myself
It's too late for your reason
You're lying you've done it this time
I'm sick of all the cheating

Do you know and do you care?

'Cos I watch you
Every day I watch you pass me by
... in the end It'll get you
Just watch us try

Oh you make it hard to be hard but I'm trying my best
'Cos down inside I'm burnin'
You want it, you got it, now take it and run


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You read the 182 page report?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 6, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



Nope. I read the section that pertained to the impact on the employment pool. 

Isn't this fun?!


----------



## TemplarKormac (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Hey sparky, stop being lazy:



> "...*The reduction in CBO&#8217;s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA.* *The decline in full-time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA ** will consist of some people not being employed at all* and other people working fewer hours..."



The Budget and Economic Outlook 2014 to 2024 - CBO, Page 117

Job losses or no, any self proclaimed liberal would be appalled at how many people are having their hours cut, salaries reduced or are potentially about to lose their jobs because of the ACA. To sit there and continue to tout this law despite the detrimental effect on Americans is self centered. The law is a failure. You can call me all the names under the sun, call me fat or tell me to get a job, but it's time for you to acknowledge reality.


----------



## Politico (Feb 6, 2014)

SwimExpert said:


> I don't think anything can destroy Obamacare.



Yeah nothing. Just the voters. And we know what idiots they are.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Very much fun!
You tell  Geaux4it to read the report yet you haven't done so your-self.

Pot/Kettle.

You cherry pic the portions that support your ideology. 
Very sad for you.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I understand that if more people are working part time jobs in order to get money from the government to pay for their health insurance there are a number of unintended consequences.  Here are two of them off the top of my head.

One: Their state and federal Income taxes are lower, since they are based on gross earnings, resulting in less tax revenue to the federal and state governments.  

Two: Their contribution to Soc Sec and Medicare are less, resulting in a lower Soc Sec benefit at age 65 and less paid into Medicare to keep that program solvent.

Since you think you understand the CBO report, did you see where the money to pay for the additional 2.5 million people that will get government money to pay for their health insurance comes from?


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 6, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Dear TooTall LoneLaugher and Company:
These are all good points, except for personal comments pointed at people instead of the content of arguments.

Keep in mind, that since both sides are coming into this NOT BELIEVING the arguments of the other, this is not unlike the creation/evolution debate.

From the very onset, both sides seek to defend their beliefs from imposition by the other.
The bill was passed in this manner, and will always be flawed because it imposed a national law WITHOUT PROOF and WITHOUT CONSENT of the taxpayers affected.

All arguments will be interpreted differently, depending which side is defending THEIR BELIEFS about health care and how it should be paid for.

This conflict was not resolved by consensus between pre-existing beliefs (which WILL NOT CHANGE) before passing the bill, so it will never be agreed upon as written and enforced.

Even if this plan "proved to work" it would STILL be against the beliefs of people who disagree with federal government implementing it without amending the Constitution first, and being granted authority by CONSENT of the states and the people VOTING on this change to Constitutional policy and authority. Even if it worked, the objections would remain.

The way I see to resolve this conflict is to SEPARATE policies by belief system, such as by Party, and dividing the taxbase to represent views of the taxpayers in groups, and where they wish to invest their taxes without imposition or conflict with other people or parties.

Under that, I would hold the Democrat Party responsible for implementing and funding the ACA and allow nonsupporters equal option to invest in their own party's alternatives. The transition I support for health care reform is to balance the prison budgets with public health care; along with immigration reform through "earned amnesty" collecting restitution for past violations in order to pay for health care and education instead of charging law abiding taxpayers who committed no crimes. The Greens and Libertarians can either set up their own party-based health care network, or lobby for reform through the other major parties. Let everyone fund and participate freely in their health care system of choice. 

Once these plans are proven to work in groups WILLING TO SUPPORT THEM, then other citizens can have a free and equal INFORMED choice of buying into them BY CONSENT.
INSTEAD of being forced by law WITHOUT PROOF and/or WITHOUT CONSENT which is a blatant violation of religious freedom and equal Constitutional protections of individual rights. Otherwise this imposition constitutes taxation without representation and INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE by forcing people to "give up our labor" to pay insurance companies we did not agree to contract any business with under terms we didn't vote on.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 6, 2014)

Making economic arguments over a program that is already being attacked successfully an instrument of killing does divert Ds from the schwerpunkt.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...



He didn't even read the appendix that discuss the impacts of Obamacare. If he did he would know that the reason the CBO is expecting people to work less is that taxes on work will force them to chose between making more money or paying for suck ass insurance policies that they didn't want in the first place.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



No you didn't, you read what the LA Times told you to believe about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 6, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



You missed the really fun one, the same people that insist that women having the ability to earn a living frees them from being dependent on men are now arguing that women being dependent on government frees them from the ability to earn a living.


----------



## Antares (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You are either lying or you did not read it.....or you did not understand it.....I think you are lying just like ole Greenteeth did.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Feb 6, 2014)

2 days and 8 pages of posts and all we have is right wing spin.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 6, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



I linked to it, asshole. It was provided to me by the LA Times......nice and neat. 

You assholes have run with ANOTHER misrepresentation of the facts. Nearly every day....you guys take a statement or a report or a news item....and interpret it in a way that condemns the POTUS. In most cases, you are simply being dishonest

You are all just a joke at this point.


----------



## Antares (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



LOL, ok you read the Times report on it, I read the report....it doesn't say what YOU say it says....and I've already used the report itself to refute the silly shit you are lying about.

Perhaps when you grow up you can read the ACTUAL report and understand it.


----------



## Sunshine (Feb 6, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



What is left to do or say except for one to throw up their hands and say, 'he got his way.'  

He did.

That's pretty much all there is to it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 6, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



I read the section of the report that deals with employment. I told you that. 

You read the entire report? Why are you lying?


----------



## Antares (Feb 6, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Kid if you read it you did NOT understand it, I know you need to protect the King...I read the Labor, the Medicaid and the "revised projections" about the costs.

LL you have no credibility, none.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 6, 2014)

Antares, I have never had more than 10 people at one time on my ignore list at USMB LL is one of the very few who make the cut. Perhaps he should make yours?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You just said you read the LA Times, not the report.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Antares, I have never had more than 10 people at one time on my ignore list at USMB LL is one of the very few who make the cut. Perhaps he should make yours?



That is ten more people than I have on my list.

I wonder, which of us is more intolerant?


----------



## william the wie (Feb 7, 2014)

More like who values their time more and by the way 10 was my peak it is less than that now.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 7, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Good post.  I was called an idiot for giving what I considered a reasonable answer to a rather inane question and then let my temper moderate my good judgement.  I very seldom resort to name calling, and when I do it is because someone insulted me first.  Not cool, but it is what it is.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Earlier.....I linked to the LA Times.  In the article, the Times linked to the relevant section in the report....which I also read. 

Try to understand and follow along, please. .

Here it is again. 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-cbo-20140204,0,3106578.story#axzz2sdMpHIYP

See where they link to pp117-127? That is what I read. That is what I said I read. 

Will you issue an apology?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 7, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Geaux4it said:
> ...





very telling that you stopped quoting the report at that point.


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Antares, I have never had more than 10 people at one time on my ignore list at USMB LL is one of the very few who make the cut. Perhaps he should make yours?



I hold a special animus towards liars, and this kid lies through his teeth at every turn...SIMPLY to protect King Obama.

People like him and Greenteeth post their shit and hope others don't take the time to investigate what they post....I enjoy bitch slapping them.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 7, 2014)

Antares said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > Antares, I have never had more than 10 people at one time on my ignore list at USMB LL is one of the very few who make the cut. Perhaps he should make yours?
> ...



You have never once witnessed me telling a lie here. Period.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 7, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



go listen to Paul Ryan ... then go read the damn report ... then pull your head out of your ass ... has nothing to do with fewer jobs... it has everything to do with people not having to be forced to work long hours to get health care you idiot !!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



you do say stupid shit at times... lets see here...  suck ass policy. verse nothing???? HIUMMM what would you do????  myself, I'd pick the suck ass policy... its better then losing everything you own now isn't it ???


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...


go back read his post again the one where he tells you about the link to the report ... do you have a comprehension  problem or what???


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Copy write and all that stuff...


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Speaking of jokes...second paragraph, first sentence, gives a link to the pdf. 
All 182 pages of it!  

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

If you don't work in the field the least you could do is research before you type.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 7, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



The report does not say what the rw's want it to say and what fux lies reported it said.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> The report does not say what the rw's want it to say and what fux lies reported it said.



^^^ another one who didn't read the CBO report.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf

page 8

*Deficits Are Projected to Decline 
Through 2015 but Rise Thereafter, 
Further Boosting Federal Debt *


oops, you did it again.

You need to stop watching fux!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> You have never once witnessed me telling a lie here. Period.



That is correct!

Misinformed perhaps or lack of knowledge, but never an outright lie!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Earlier.....I linked to the LA Times.  In the article, the Times linked to the relevant section in the report....which I also read.
> 
> Try to understand and follow along, please. .
> 
> ...



Apples and bananas... 

That wasn't the CBO report you linked to...it was an opinion piece to the original article the OP posted.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 7, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Earlier.....I linked to the LA Times.  In the article, the Times linked to the relevant section in the report....which I also read.
> ...



for fucks sake, the link to appendix c is in the la times link.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> for fucks sake, the link to appendix c is in the la times link.



Yes, yes...10 pages from an 182 page non-partisan report tells the whole story!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 7, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > for fucks sake, the link to appendix c is in the la times link.
> ...



when the topic is effect of the ACA on the labor market, and specifically the updated estimates, then appendix c is the relevant part. not the whole CBO report.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 7, 2014)

What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,

once again, the RW machine is forced to defend an indefensible position.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Thread title:

*New CBO report is devastating for Obamacare*

Again, if a person doesn't work in the healthcare field, ten pages is meaningless. 

Get it now?

Doubtful, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.



Anddddd, my first patient is calling. 

Later tater!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,
> 
> once again, the RW machine is forced to defend an indefensible position.



Did the LW read the 182 page non partisan CBO report?
How is non partisan 'propaganda'?

The CBO report lies, 'eh?
Where do you think the ACA numbers originally come from?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 7, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



bye bye, thanks for playing.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 7, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,
> ...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 7, 2014)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...what-the-cbo-really-says-about-obamacare.html


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...what-the-cbo-really-says-about-obamacare.html



No matter how it gets there, either by quitting, cutting back, loss of job, or a combination of all.  This isn't good for Americans, the economy, or the ACA.


----------



## Meister (Feb 7, 2014)

rdean said:


> Oh my Gawd.
> 
> This is disasterous.
> 
> ...


Deen, you do realize that the rich will always have healthcare insurance and will not lose an hour of work to try and get gov. subsidies.  Those are the people who will keep accumulating wealth.
For the people who will cutback hours or quit working altogether will start to lose their grip with the middle class.  Their savings will slow down, grow stagnate, or lose.
You will be the first person to whine and cry about the increase in spread between the rich and poor, yet here you are touting this mess to our country as not to worry.  You also won't understand my post and just try and spin the reality of it.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 7, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,
> ...



It's been proven that the rightwing's interpretation of the report is WRONG,

your inane denials notwithstanding.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,
> 
> once again, the RW machine is forced to defend an indefensible position.


The report is a no worries event. The CBO as usual tilted way left. What you lefties are neglecting is that published data on what has happened for example employment and UE both lagging population growth for Dec. and Jan. means that your policies are an existential threat to marginal workers and they know it.


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Its been "proven" by nut jobs like you and left wing pundits?

Nope.

Sweetie I haven't even read any of the articles, just the report, you people are the ones spinning it to support the king.


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

*Because the largest declines in labor
supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
and fringe benefits)**and the impact on the overall economy
will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
hours worked.*

The impact will be smaller because they don't make much to start with...but hey they won't be tied down just any old McDonalds.....they'll be "free" to spend more time with the kids they can't feed.

The next claim....

*The decline in fulltime-
equivalent employment stemming from the ACA
will consist of some people not being employed at all and
other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not
tried to quantify those two components of the overall
effect.*

So it WILL be the cause , but then they say this....

*The estimated reduction stems almost entirely
from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers
choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses&#8217;
demand for labor,*

I object your honor...SPECULATION....


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

*CBO&#8217;s estimate that the ACA will reduce employment
reflects some of the inherent trade-offs involved in
designing such legislation*

IT WILL CAUSE the reductions people.


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

*Subsidies that help lowerincome
people purchase an expensive product like
health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a
significant proportion of eligible people to enroll.**If those
subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to
limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises peoples
marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their
last dollar of income), thus discouraging work.*

'
*In addition,
if the subsidies are financed at least in part by higher
taxes, those taxes will further discourage work or create
other economic distortions, depending on how the taxes
are designed.**Alternatively, if subsidies are not phased out
or eliminated with rising income, then the increase in
taxes required to finance the subsidies would be much
larger.*

See what happens when you just read the report...if you kids think this thing is good news you have serious comprehension issue.


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

Antares said:


> *Because the largest declines in labor
> supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
> the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
> and fringe benefits)**and the impact on the overall economy
> ...



Further into the report.....

*CBOs estimate of the ACAs impact on labor markets is
subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part
because many of the ACAs provisions have never been
implemented on such a broad scale and in part because
available estimates of many key responses vary considerably.*

They ADMIT they are speculating.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Feb 7, 2014)

Antares said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Proving something does not require getting assholes like you to admit that something was proven,  but hey,

by all means, keep making a fool of yourself.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 7, 2014)

NTG said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> > Now maybe the leftist traitors will get a clue
> ...



i cant wait for the day when the "Party" people on both sides start thinking for themselves .....although i doubt that will ever happen...."dependency" is a bitch....


----------



## Antares (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...




S'ok Carb...pay no attention to the ACTUAL report.

Just thank me for showing you the truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




How do you know what the LA Times to is actually part of the budget report? Did you compare it to the report, of just trust the Times?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutters.........too lazy to even try to understand shit.
> 
> Why the new CBO report on Obamacare is good news - latimes.com
> 
> Good news, bitches. Good news.



so what if Michael Hiltzik is wrong?.....just askin....


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



What denial?

The OPINION of the CBO report was cherry  picked by a left winger.
How does an opinion piece of the CBO report by a left winger 'prove'  the rightwing's interpretation of the report is wrong?

Report vs OPINION is HUGE!

Ya know, I've never allowed myself to fall into the crevice of calling posters
left wingers, yet I find myself doing this merely because the label is a popular attempt to insult anyone who is telling the truth.

Kerry on!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...what-the-cbo-really-says-about-obamacare.html



I can do that to. I think I will use the left wing, pro Obamacare, website Forbes.

CBO: Obamacare Is A Tax On Work, May Cut Full-Time Workforce By 2.5 Million - Forbes


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



You might be right about that, but repeating an echo chamber without actually looking at what the report says isn't proof either. Unlike everyone who is telling me the report doesn't mean what it says, I actually quoted the points from the report.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> What's funny is that as usual the entire rightwing propaganda machine bought into the same lies about the report and since there is no page in the rightwing playbook that allows for admitting a mistake,
> 
> once again, the RW machine is forced to defend an indefensible position.



Keep repeating your mantra. 

Eventually someone who's aware of the reality will believe you.




Not.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 7, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



who called who an idiot first?....


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



No response...must ridicule...

Thanks for your concession!!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 7, 2014)

Harry Dresden said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...



Oh dam!  [MENTION=16291]Harry Dresden[/MENTION]!  You idiot!

I'll throw myself under the bus and take full credit for that one!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 7, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> 2 days and 8 pages of posts and all we have is right wing spin.



no left wing spin also?....guess who has a Democratic flag sticking out of their ass?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Feb 7, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> ...



hey David?.....when are you going to get another TV series?.....i loved "Rules of Engagement"....you and Timmy were great.....


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 8, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



^complains about a left winger "cherry picking" the CBO report.

^cheerleads the cherry picking of the CBO report presented by right wingers.

^thinks she has a leg to stand on in this thing.

priceless.


----------



## Interpol (Feb 8, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



The GOP was not ignored. 

The President invited congressional Republican leaders over to the White House numerous times, but they always refused to meet him because the entire GOP plan from Obama's inauguration day was to give him nothing and to never give the perception to their conservative voters that they would work with him. 

This bunch of idiot Republicans are the first people in American history to not accept breakfast invites from the President of the United States. 

They're such morons. And by refusing to work with Obama, Obama gets to claim all the credit for it. 

This CBO report is positive news for the administration and for America.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

Sometimes I waiver after witnessing how firmly our USMB nutters cling to misinformation and fear tactics.......but I am fairly certain that the American people are capable of seeing through the negative spin.

To be sure, there will be nutter talking heads blurting out "The non-partisan CBO recently found that Obamacare will cost over 2 million jobs....blah....blah....blah...." from now until election day. But. I think it will ring hollow. The fact is that more people are working and the economy is improving. Reality is kicking nutter ass.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Sometimes I waiver after witnessing how firmly our USMB nutters cling to misinformation and fear tactics.......but I am fairly certain that the American people are capable of seeing through the negative spin.
> 
> To be sure, there will be nutter talking heads blurting out "The non-partisan CBO recently found that Obamacare will cost over 2 million jobs....blah....blah....blah...." from now until election day. But. I think it will ring hollow. The fact is that more people are working and the economy is improving. Reality is kicking nutter ass.



The CBO is composed of a group of center left economists, and here is a bit of reality for you.



> People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels
> 
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/10/2014 08:48 -0500
> 
> ...


People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels | Zero Hedge


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I waiver after witnessing how firmly our USMB nutters cling to misinformation and fear tactics.......but I am fairly certain that the American people are capable of seeing through the negative spin.
> ...



Yo Too Tall, 

Tell me something about that Tyler Durden fella.  I can't quite put my finger on where I have heard that name before. Help me out, will ya?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes I waiver after witnessing how firmly our USMB nutters cling to misinformation and fear tactics.......but I am fairly certain that the American people are capable of seeing through the negative spin.
> ...



^ accuses the CBO of presenting a left-wing biased report.

^"counters" with a post by "tyler durden"

where is the connection to the ACA?

haha


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



he makes a life out of being a fool .... all of his post if not funny at best, are total distortions of what reality is ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



we're waiting for you to see what the truth is ... so far you're batting "0"


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



did you not read his post ... he clearly stated, at least that's what I saw, was where he went to the LA times, where he stated there is a link to the CBO's web site ... now if that's a distortion of the truth, the CBO web site, well what can we say.... but if its a case of poor comprehension skills on your part that's ok too ... we understand ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



you know, I never knew Paul Ryan was a lift wing far left lefty ... because it was he himself that came to the media and said we got it wrong folks on what the CBO was saying ... they didn't say there were 2.5 million jobs lost ... Damn that left wing lefty Paul Ryan ... can't he ever get anything right....

the fact that you're big on sources here is paul Ryan telly your fellow republicans that its not a job loss 
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-job-lock-20140205,0,2101794.story#axzz2sjcEHVHb

but I know you'll say its a liberals site but hey it's paul ryan saying it ...


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



They did say there was a disincentive to work.  Do you consider that a good thing?


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Apparently you kids are WAY over your heads here.

I posted the report, no spin, just the report and it seems to be WAY over your heads.

LOL, the most intellectual rebuttal you people have when faced with reality is a resounding "NUH-UH"!!!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



its not for me to decide if its a good thing or not... the way I perceive it is this, if you, as a worker, don't want the long hours and you would rather be with your family, then working 40 hours a week,. by working part time, then that's their (a word republicans don't like) choice... its not for me to say ... the ACA now allows you to choose to do what you want with your life and still have some sort of health care...

now this whole post here was supposed to be about republicans saying that jobs will be lost because of the ACA ... it wasn't about weather I liked the Idea that they don't have to work long hours, short hours, or any hours at all ... it was supposed to be about you republicans claiming that it caused jobs to be lost ... now we on the left said that's what its about ... did you read it instead of saying no I didn't read it we where called liars spinners of the truth and lots of names... we Lefties are use to being called names by the right...

now, I believe here your intention here is to do what we call shiny objects ... you know, hey look over here !!!! see what's over here ...don't look at the other thing look at this thing over here ... that's what I feel you're trying to do here ... instead of admitting to us that you republicans here were in error about what the CBO said you try the ole shiny object routine ... I answered it in the way I felt about it... so can you honestly now say that you too were in error about understanding what the CBO has said ... or are we going to see more shiny objscts here????


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



no you posted a opinion ...you never posted any report at all ... you may think you did, the only thing I hear from you is a  resounding "NUH-UH"!!!!! 

 because if you had a brain in your head, you would have gone  to look at the web site that I posted of Paul Ryan saying it wasn't a job loss report ... if you had, then this way you wouldn't appear sooooo stupid here... you're making a fool of your self ... but we're use to it ...


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



You have simply proven you can't read....all those big fancy colored words are straight from the report....my words are the tiny little dark ones, that should help lil guy.


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

; Just for you po lil folk.....LL all of that is from your section C.....

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> ; Just for you po lil folk.....LL all of that is from your section C.....
> 
> http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf



then why didn't you read it yourself???  or did you not understand what the whole post was about here ... let me enlighten you again... the accusation was this ... The CBO said the ACA will cost us 2.5 million jobs... now got to your PDF  file look at it, then tell use what page number, where it says in that report of yours that says the ACA will cost 2.5 million jobs can ya do that for us .??? or are you going to come back here with another rant...

now in the top of your PDF file it has a search engine I typed in it this phrase "the ACA will cause Job loss" guess what ???? it couldn't find that phrase anywhere in the 189 pages wonder why that is ??? could it be they never said it???


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 8, 2014)

billerock1991...try reading Appendix C, Page 117.  Hopefully you get the drift.


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > ; Just for you po lil folk.....LL all of that is from your section C.....
> ...



Poor billy, read it for yourself....I posted it in BIG colorful letters for you......those of us who have decent comprehension skills can read it for ourselves and understand it...the rest of you depend on the spin meisters to "explain" it to you.....again all of those big colorful letters come from the report....I's read NONE of the spin articles from either side


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> billerock1991...try reading Appendix C, Page 117.  Hopefully you get the drift.



Overview
The baseline economic projections developed by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) incorporate the
agency&#8217;s estimates of the future effects of federal policies
under current law. The agency updates those projections
regularly to account for new information and analysis
regarding federal fiscal policies and many other influences
on the economy. In preparing economic projections for
the February 2014 baseline, CBO has updated its estimates
of the effects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on
labor markets.1
The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full
effect over the next several years and that will influence
the supply of and demand for labor through various
channels. For example, some provisions will raise effective
tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the
amount of labor that some workers choose to supply. In
particular, the health insurance subsidies that the act provides
to some people will be phased out as their income
rises&#8212;creating an implicit tax on additional earnings&#8212;
whereas for other people, the act imposes higher taxes on
labor income directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting
pressures on the quantity of labor that employers
demand, primarily during the next few years.
How Much Will the ACA Reduce
Employment in the Longer Term?
The ACA&#8217;s largest impact on labor markets will probably
occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken
full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum
sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA
will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net,
by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period
from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will
choose to supply less labor&#8212;given the new taxes and
other incentives they will face and the financial benefits
some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor
supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy
will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA
will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate
labor compensation over the 2017&#8211;2024 period, compared
with what it would have been otherwise. Although
such effects are likely to continue after 2024 (the end of
the current 10-year budget window), CBO has not estimated
their magnitude or duration over a longer period.
The reduction in CBO&#8217;s projections of hours worked
represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent
workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
2.5 million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total
employment (and compensation) will increase over the
coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would
have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in fulltime-
equivalent employment stemming from the ACA
will consist of some people not being employed at all and
other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not
tried to quantify those two components of the overall
effect. The estimated reduction stems almost entirely
from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers
choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses&#8217;
demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely
as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours
worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise
1. As referred to in this report, the Affordable Care Act comprises
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148); the health care provisions of the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-152); and the
effects of subsequent judicial decisions, statutory changes, and
administrative actions.

* HERE IT IS
I posted it for us to look at  so show us where it says it will cause JOB loss*[


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 8, 2014)

What part of the word "decline" or "reduction" do you not understand?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

this whole post here was about the ACA causing job loss ...  not that it will cause is to pay higher taxes or what ever ... it was about the ACA causing jobs to be loss...period!!!! now if you don't lie the idea the peole don't have to work long hours any more thats your choice but don't come here and claim that it causes job loss ... then try to defend that statement ... it won't wash ... I mean you can go all day pointing things you don't like ... that's your choice ... but if you can't stick to the accusation being made in the first post that's your problem not mine... I'm addressing the accusation made by the republicans, Boehner and McConnell, them saying to the country that jobs will be loss and you defending those statement ... even Paul Ryan said they got it wrong... as do you get it wrong


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 8, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> What part of the word "decline" or "reduction" do you not understand?



here is what they said"some provisions will raise effective
tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the
amount of labor* that some workers choose to supply*"

now point out where it says JOB loss ... what part of JOB LOSS do you not understand ...no where in that sentence does it say JOB loss ... it clearly says to me, that they have a choice in supping their labor to any companies nothing more..

it says here
Because the largest *declines in labor
supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy
will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
hours worked.* Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA
*will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate
labor compensation over the 2017&#8211;2024 period, compared*

again show us where it says it will cause job loss .... I don't see in that statement anywhere that it says it will cause job loss ...


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

g5000 said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > What I want to know is why Liberals continue to tout this law as something people need? Has it not already been proven to be not so? Why do they insist on foisting this on America?
> ...




You obviously do not get it. Obama had a filibuster PROOF congress during his first 2  years in office--MEANING Republicans couldn't do a thing about Obamacare.  That's why it was rushed through the senate & house (democrat controlled all the way)--and they didn't even take the time to read this 3200 page bill before they signed it.

Republican went through a list on the floor (even though being the minut minority-of what was going to happen)--which is starting to happen now and NO ONE LISTENED.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stopped them at every turn.  Republicans were even BLOCKED from attending committee hearings on Obamacare.

There wasn't one single Republican vote to approve Obamacare--(the first in the history of this nation.)

*No--DEMOCRATS OWN Obamacare all by themselves.*







*Welcome to your hope and change!
*


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > TemplarKormac said:
> ...



Nice cartoon. Completely misrepresents the facts. You must be proud. 

If the labor force shrinks by 2.3 million people, a dude ( or an ass ) with a job is less likely to lose it. Do you get that? In fact, he will have more negotiating power. 

Think, please.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



*LAW OF ECONOMICS*--something I know because I have been a small business owner for over 30 years--with employees.  When you add costs onto employers the very FIRST thing they CUT are JOBS.

Obamacare has not even hit the employer mandate as yet.  Democrats wisely postponed that until after the mid-term election cycle coming up this November.  Employers with 50 or more employees will be required to cover their employees under Obamacare.  Their next OPTION--is to cut employees hours to no more than 29 hours per week--to avoid their employees costs of Obamacare--or to simply lay off employees.  *TAKE YOUR choice this is what is going to happen.*

Now for those that are currently covered under a small business owner--that contribute to their owner employer based policy (with fewer than 50 employees)--THIS is what is already happening.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk]WTAE-PA: Pennsylvania Small Business Hit With Skyrocketing Health Costs From ObamaCare - YouTube[/ame]

*It's not IF Obamacare is going to affect you it's WHEN.*


----------



## william the wie (Feb 8, 2014)

These lefties actually believe denial is simply a river in Egypt, funny as all get out.


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

Well my first time in this room & sad to say its no different then any other of the rooms.

Why is it necessary to drive home your point by lying? Why?

Why is it a bad thing that millions of workers can make a decisions to change jobs , quit & start their own business or retire when its time because the ACA allows them the comfort of having HC?

Why would anyone try to spin that to make it a bad thing? Makes no sense at all?

It is an absolute lie to say ACA is causing million of Americans to lose their job. If you have a defensible position your taking them why lie about it?

Scary


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



This is from the CBO report and I don't see any shiny objects.  People who are laid off, cut back to 29 hours a week or not able to get a job because of the ACA are not making a choice.

[quote*]More than 2 million Americans who would otherwise rely on a job for health insurance will quit working, reduce their hours or stop looking for employment *because of new health benefits available under the Affordable Care Act, congressional budget analysts said Tuesday.

The CBO attributed the decline in workforce participation primarily to this effect. But there were other, less important causes, too, including the likelihood that *some employers will cut peoples hours, hire fewer workers or offer lower wages to new workers* to avoid or compensate for a new fine on employers that do not offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.[/quote]


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

rtviper said:


> Well my first time in this room & sad to say its no different then any other of the rooms.
> 
> Why is it necessary to drive home your point by lying? Why?
> 
> ...



Are you calling the CBO liars?



> *The CBO attributed* the decline in workforce participation primarily to this effect. But there were other, less important causes, too, including *the likelihood that some employers will cut peoples hours, hire fewer workers or offer lower wages to new workers to avoid or compensate for a new fine on employers that do not offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

Interpol said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



It is amazing how many people manage to cross dimensions and post on this board.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> rtviper said:
> 
> 
> > Well my first time in this room & sad to say its no different then any other of the rooms.
> ...



Liberals are going to call anyone liars--racists or whatever that doesn't suit what they believe.  They can't see beyond the tip of their noses or look at REALITY.  Something that is really happening and is going to happen to those that haven't been hit by Obamcare as yet--but is certain to affect them--is beyond their comprehension.

The only time they will realize it is when it DIRECTLY affects them or it comes out of their own wallets--and that's on schedule. 

*PURPOSE OF OBAMACARE:*  to insure the unisured * EFFECT OF OBAMACARE:*  uninsuring the insured

_To date--6.4 million policies have been cancelled in the individual marketplace--because they did not meet the mandates of Obamacare.  If you add in children and spouses that were covered under these plans you are talking about another 12-14 million people that have been added to the uninsured in this country.  This after being promised by Obama and democrats over 40 times, that if you "liked" your policy and your doctor you could keep them. _ *LIE OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO BARACK OBAMA.
*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Sometimes I waiver after witnessing how firmly our USMB nutters cling to misinformation and fear tactics.......but I am fairly certain that the American people are capable of seeing through the negative spin.
> 
> To be sure, there will be nutter talking heads blurting out "The non-partisan CBO recently found that Obamacare will cost over 2 million jobs....blah....blah....blah...." from now until election day. But. I think it will ring hollow. The fact is that more people are working and the economy is improving. Reality is kicking nutter ass.



That must be why Obamacare is so popular now.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



And...as a SMALL business owner....never having greater than 50 employees...I have absolutely no worries about any mandate. You don't either.

And...that video is certified bullshit. More reasons for you to be proud.


----------



## itfitzme (Feb 8, 2014)

Someone is confused.  The CBO report says,

"CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024,"



"CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade,"

"That increase in overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the hours of current employees during that period."

"rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week)"

"CBO anticipates that the ACA will lead to a net reduction in the supply of labor."

"some people will choose not to work or will work lessthus substituting other activities for work."

"CBOs estimate that the ACA will reduce employment"

"CBOs estimate of the ACAs impact on labor markets is subject to substantial uncertainty,"

So, you can pick and choose whatever you want, if you are inclined to be disengenous.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

No I am not calling the CBO liars just those who try to distort or outright lie about what the CBO actually said.

First off, if people chose to quit their jobs then their jobs weren't cut because of ACA it was their choice. Then to turn a good thing into a bad thing is a lie. The cartoon about the impact on his own job implies he lost it because of ACA when in fact that's is an outright lie. CBO report says many will have the ability to quit on their own.

 Now this is a very good thing as many Americans have been working past retirement because of affordable HC until now. The ability to obtain affordable HC will free up thousands of jobs for those looking because the older workers can now retire as they want.

Then we see a post about 12 to 14 million becoming uninsured because HC Ins. cancelled their plans. That's is also a lie, as most of the cancelled plans will be replaced by a different plan. Also all those millions can now take advantage of the exchanges unless in States whose Gov, is trying to keep them uninsured.

The exchanges will provide better plans at a lower cost for those millions that's a good thing.

Now their may be 10,000 people who will be uninsured because of ACA compared to 40 million getting HC,. That's not perfect but an acceptable cost.

Funny how righty has no problem with us going to war under the guise of it will protect Americans at a cost of thousands of young Americans lives. See that's an acceptable loss, but if Obama protects 40 million or more with his HC plan saving tens of thousands of lives, at the cost of 10,000 temporarily uninsured, that's bad? WTF

I think we can see who is lying?

Scary people.


----------



## Meister (Feb 8, 2014)

rtviper said:


> No I am not calling the CBO liars just those who try to distort or outright lie about what the CBO actually said.
> 
> First off, if people chose to quit their jobs then their jobs weren't cut because of ACA it was their choice. Then to turn a good thing into a bad thing is a lie. The cartoon about the impact on his own job implies he lost it because of ACA when in fact that's is an outright lie. CBO report says many will have the ability to quit on their own.
> 
> ...


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

Their next OPTION--is to cut employees hours to no more than 29 hours per week--to avoid their employees costs of Obamacare--or to simply lay off employees. TAKE YOUR choice this is what is going to happen." LOL

You gotta love the prognosticators on the right? 

Obama will destroy this nation.
ACA will have Death Panels.
Obama will socialize this Nation.
Obama will lose by a landslide.

Funny when your agenda lacks anything of substance to support it, you have to rely on just wait & you will see? WTF?

Why would any true American not want HC for everyone? Kiddies Obamacare is here to stay maybe it will be tweaked to a single payer program like Medicare, but its Law.

Get over it, & yes Obama will remain Black his entire term.

Scary people.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Someone is confused.  The CBO report says,
> 
> "CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024,"
> 
> ...



I choose this one.



> The CBO attributed the decline in workforce participation primarily to this effect. But there were other, less important causes, too, including the likelihood that* some employers will cut peoples hours, hire fewer workers or offer lower wages to new workers to avoid or compensate for a new fine on employers that do not offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week*.


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

some employers will cut people&#8217;s hours, hire fewer workers or offer lower wages to new workers to avoid or compensate for a new fine on employers that do not offer insurance to employees who work more than 30 hours a week."

If that occurs people can now quit those jobs & reemploy knowing they wont be destroyed financially by an illness thanks to Obamacare.
The only reason so many employees provide HC is to be competitive in the job market. If a fast food store cuts employees hours the employee who thanks to Obamacare now has Ins. can move on not losing his HC.

There will be plenty of minimum wage jobs or else they will not be staffed. Its no different then any Business, could Walmart continue top operate without the Waltons, yes of course, could they operate without the employees, No they are toast.

Many workers stay at the job they hate because of HC Ins. like the CBO said, now they can leave & do other things & still have HC. 

Just say thanks Obama.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Someone is confused.



That would be everyone that suddenly thinks the government should be encouraging people to be less productive.


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

That would be everyone that suddenly thinks the government should be encouraging people to be less productive."

So finally someone pointing fingers at the right.

After all its righty who thinks wages should be lower, more money should flow to the rich thus removing Trillions from the economy, millions should forgo HC Ins. making them less productive as they are now more receptive to illnesses without proper preventive care, education should be for those who can afford it, thus reducing the employabiltiy of millions, Women should not be making as much money as men even doing the same work, encourage moving jobs overseas as righty promotes thus reducing good paying jobs in America making us less productive etc etc.

In spite of righty's call to create jobs in 2010 to win some elections they have did Zero to create new jobs, did they lie in their campaign speeches?

Scary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

rtviper said:


> That would be everyone that suddenly thinks the government should be encouraging people to be less productive."
> 
> So finally someone pointing fingers at the right.
> 
> ...



Damn, I thought rdean was stupid. I really owe him an apology.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



So now--not only the bi-partisan Congressional budget report is a lie--but so is the video-that is being reported by a *news station-out of BLUE STATE PA.  
*

You have NEVER been a small business owner in your entire life--nor will you ever be--that is something that is a LIE.   It's you that is lying.  You're just another "Lil" Einstein thumb sucking liberal.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuA2_P-m4Sk#t=184[/ame]


----------



## rtviper (Feb 8, 2014)

So now--not only the bi-partisan Congressional budget report is a lie--but so is the video-that is being reported by a news station-out of BLUE STATE PA. "

Well no righty's interpretation of what the CBO report said is a lie, & the video is a staged distortion that is hiding the truth .

Kiddies this isn't that tough really, just think then post.

WTF?


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

rtviper said:


> So now--not only the bi-partisan Congressional budget report is a lie--but so is the video-that is being reported by a news station-out of BLUE STATE PA. "
> 
> Well no righty's interpretation of what the CBO report said is a lie, & the video is a staged distortion that is hiding the truth .
> 
> ...



So if it's something that's contrary to what Obama told you it's a lie?  That's basically stretching the limits of your mental capacity.

So according to your mental capacity Obama never said that "if you like your plan you can keep it."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUpJDzyRnY]"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." Barack Obama Supercut - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



I own a small business now. One employee and 6 reps. Have had two others that didn't survive. You are being foolish. I sign the checks, bitch.


----------



## Victory67 (Feb 8, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> Course we've been saying this all along but dems have had their heads permanently stuck in the sand.



2 million people aren't going to be laid off, and we won't have 2 million fewer workers.

Existing workers are predicted to choose to reduce their own hours, over a seven year period, that equal the number of full time hours in one year of 2 million people.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rtviper said:
> 
> 
> > That would be everyone that suddenly thinks the government should be encouraging people to be less productive."
> ...



Just because someone is more stupid than rdean does not mean rdean is still not stupid.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 8, 2014)

Still arguing about this even though the truth was posted long time ago?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...what-the-cbo-really-says-about-obamacare.html


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

[MENTION=11951]oreo[/MENTION]

Where you at, bitch? Let's talk about business.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Yeah right--


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> [MENTION=11951]oreo[/MENTION]
> 
> Where you at, bitch? Let's talk about business.



Don't you really want to get your ass kicked?  What on earth would someone like you know about owning and operating their own business?

You first!

Here let me help you.  First Question: Other than wages--what are the employer liabilities regarding employees such as payroll taxes and insurance?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION=11951]oreo[/MENTION]
> ...



Me first? Cool. 

I own a cutting tool distributorship. I sell and service tooling for industry. Been in business since 2008. Had a different business involving youth sports training from 2005 to 2007. It failed. Then...while operating my current business, I started another youth sports business. It also failed. 

I now employ one part time office manager and I contract with 6 independent reps. Doing fantastic. 

How about you? You gonna be impacted by the mandate? Or are you just whining like a nutter bitch?


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Seeing as how you still cling to the report as "good news" concerning the ACA and employment it is no wonder you failed twice at business.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



*Any REAL employer would have been able to nail the question of employer liabilities other than wages required insurance within 10 seconds of being asked it.*  YOU DIDN'T.

I will let you have another try at it.

For me--I have been a sub-S corporation for over 30 years--we are licensed electrical contractors in the State of Colorado--doing residential and commercial work and over these many years have employed 100's of electricians--and yes have written out lots and lots of paychecks.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



Nail what? Are you drinking?

Cool. Do you have more than 50 employees? Or...is your bitching about the Republican idea of am employee mandate just a way for you to cry without tears?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

Victory67 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
> ...



Nice, but not a complete picture of what they said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 8, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rtviper said:
> ...



Good point.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




*One more time:*  What liabilities other than wages--do employers have regarding payroll taxes and insurance?

If you can't answer what is an elementary question to real employers in this country--then you aren't an employer.


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.

I really don't mind debating people who speak their minds on topics.  What irritates me is people, like you, who try to sway opinions by misrepresenting themselves and or their background and experience and that's exactly what you have done.

You have absolutely no idea what it's like to own a business much less how hard to keep it open once it's started.  Obamacare is a WMD bomb to employers in this country--who are right now struggling to keep their business's open.

At any rate you have learned well from your Master and Chief--Barack Obama--our community organizer President on how to misrepresent his bills and himself.


----------



## Antares (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.
> 
> I really don't mind debating people who speak their minds on topics.  What irritates me is people, like you, who try to sway opinions by misrepresenting themselves and or their background and experience and that's exactly what you have done.
> 
> ...



LL is simply a poser who must protect King Barak at all costs. He'll just deflect, dodge,  and generally pretend he /she is the smartest it in the room.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



One more time? You are fucking weird. 

Liabilities? Besides wages and ( health? ) insurance? Is that the super duper secret question? 

First...I have no liability regarding health insurance. That is a benefit that I can choose to provide or not.  Wages, by the way, aren't the only legal method of compensation. You should look into that

You may be referring to unemployment insurance....or workers comp. Maybe disability? Some of which are required...depending on where you are. Family leave and medical leave are also a requirement for full time employees. 

Go ahead....tell me what I missed. 

Now....why are YOU bitching about the mandate? You don't have 50 employees. You are whining like a bitch because you are a tool. 

Next.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.
> ...


I find I learn a lot less when that is the case. Now for Ss & Gs let me try a shot at your goal.

The CBO made no major noises about subsidy recapture tax rates when people try to better themselves and what little data I have been able to dig up indicates that is a gigantic hurdle to reentering the work force.

Also net diversion of consumption to medical/health services appears to be much higher than expected.

The effects of medical services migration also tend to be understated. MediCal seems likely to be the first break but IL, NY, MA and MD are all going to see a, perhaps critical, decline in licensed physicians per 100,000 population while other states will have more than can be usefully employed.

Do you also find it suspicious that these bigger issues were not addressed in the report?


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 8, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


>





MeBelle60 said:


> No response...must ridicule...
> 
> Thanks for your concession!!





			
				L.K.Eder said:
			
		

> *
> ^complains about a left winger "cherry picking" the CBO report.*


*


Fail.
Pointed out the difference between the actual CBO report and an OPINION piece a left winger wrote.



			
				L.K.Eder said:
			
		


			^cheerleads the cherry picking of the CBO report presented by right wingers.
		
Click to expand...



Another fail for ya! 

It was the left winger OPINION piece that cherry picked the CBO report



			
				L.K.Eder said:
			
		


			^thinks she has a leg to stand on in this thing.

priceless.
		
Click to expand...

*



I actually have two legs to stand on.

And, yes, they are priceless tyvm.



L.K.Eder said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > The CBO is composed of a group of center left economists, and here is a bit of reality for you.
> ...




*Tyler Durden:* Welcome to Fight Club.
The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. 
The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!
Third rule of Fight Club: someone yells "stop!", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.
Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. 
Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. 
Sixth rule: No shirts, no shoes. 
Seventh rule: fights will go on as long as they have to. 
And the eighth and final rule: if this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight.


next...


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.
> ...



I am most certainly not the smartest in the room. Are you?


----------



## oreo (Feb 8, 2014)

Antares said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.
> ...




Yes--he/she has made it very clear with me to put on ignore.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 9, 2014)

^^^And.............another one bites the dust. ^^^

EARMUFFS!!!!!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 9, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...





thanking almost every rightwing post in this thread presenting cherry-picked passages of the CBO report, or simply wrong conclusions about the same, is cheerleading.

this, coupled with your complaining about posts which present countering passages of the same CBO report, which you apparently do not want to be shown, offers the usual hypocritical partisan melange, in which you like to wallow.


attacking a poster for presenting counterarguments and calling him a liar because you cannot fathom that someone read the actual report and does not agree with your biased opinion, shows 
a) that you did and probably still do not understand why Appendix C is the relevant part of the CBO report (did not see you complaining when others posted passages from this Appendix, ha), and 
b) that your "nicety" is a very thin veneer covering a run of the mill partisan retard (now there is a surprise!).

but you have one thing going for you. you found out who "tyler durden" is.
i am almost proud of you.

in closing a tip: learn to format a post. it looks like the childish stuff you added to my post was authored by me. tsk,tsk,tsk.


----------



## TooTall (Feb 9, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Do you dispute the statistics on the number of people not in the labor force?  I could come up with a lot more than "If you like your health care plan you can keep it," if you want to compare quotes.

I can find the same stats on several official government web sites if you find them inaccurate.
On edit, do you disagree with the statement that the CBO is a group of center left economists? I will wager that you don't know anything about any of them.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> thanking almost every rightwing post in this thread presenting cherry-picked passages of the CBO report, or simply wrong conclusions about the same, is cheerleading.
> 
> this, coupled with your complaining about posts which present countering passages of the same CBO report, which you apparently do not want to be shown, offers the usual hypocritical partisan melange, in which you like to wallow.
> 
> ...



fwiw there are two (2) tyler durden's. 

Your entire post to me is fos.
You need to review what I posted.
Your claims of what I stated are full of fail.
~~~

Sadly, I must repeat myself.

If you don't work in the healthcare industry you have zero clue as to what you are attempting to spin.

Here ya' go!  Some real life facts. 
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/339321-california.html

Gee-whiz Wally, no neg from me to you.
Guess what that proves?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 9, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > thanking almost every rightwing post in this thread presenting cherry-picked passages of the CBO report, or simply wrong conclusions about the same, is cheerleading.
> ...



i am not spinning anything. i reviewed your uninformed at best and malignant at worst input to this thread, and then i spanked your partisan clueless ass.



you not negging me proves nothing of relevance. sort of like your other input.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> *i am not spinning anything.* i reviewed your uninformed at best and malignant at worst input to this thread, and then i spanked your partisan clueless ass.
> 
> you not negging me proves nothing of relevance. sort of like your other input.



*i am not spinning anything.*

Pray tell, what are the fingers in your avi doing?




Denial is a river in Egypt.

You negged me rather then discuss.
The neg in itself proves your defensiveness. 

Must see a few patients now.
Argue with you later, tater.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 9, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > i am not spinning anything. i reviewed your uninformed at best and malignant at worst input to this thread, and then i spanked your partisan clueless ass.
> ...



sure thing. bye bye, and thanks for flailing.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> *Because the largest declines in labor
> supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
> the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
> and fringe benefits)**and the impact on the overall economy
> ...


 yet in all of your attempts here trying to spin your post, it doesn't say it will cause jobs to be lost now does it ... it says "them not being employed" ... it doesn't say there's no jobs available for them , now does it  .... iy says them not being employed... 

you can't stand the fact that the CBO is saying you don't have to work, but you still can get health care thats what this is  all about... you have this crazy Idea that hundreds of million of people will quit their jobs, sit home, collect welfare, and get their health care for free...  the fact that some people can do that you can't stand that Idea... 

it drives you insane to think you're paying for someone to sit home collect money and health care from the government ... that just drive you off the deep end ... even the thought of it.... 

my question to you... do you think there is a large amount of American citizens who think the way to live your life is sit home, collect welfare, and health care, really is that whats life is all about ... the free bees


----------



## TooTall (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *Because the largest declines in labor
> ...



You didn't ask me, but I think there are a LOT of American citizens that do exactly that.  Some of them do work odd jobs off the books to make some extra money.  I even know several of them.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



that's all she knows how to do make snide remarks with out any kind of actual facts ... you see, this whole post was based on the ACA will cause  jobs to be lost ... it didn't say that ...  she hasn't yet shown once in any of her post where the CBO has said it will cause jobs to be lost ... it does say however, that you won't have to work full time jobs ... or not work at any kind of job at all ... this idea of a person not working a full time job or not a job at all dives these republicans up the wall .... it say the people aren't being slaves to the companies any more ... that they can get health care no matter what these companies do or say ... that they no longer have control over our lives... it drives republicans up the wall because that they no longer can control your life choices any more... Where MeBelle60 hates that notion that they can't make you jump to the snap of their fingers ...


----------



## Toro (Feb 9, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> fwiw there are two (2) tyler durden's.



I'm not sure what you mean by that, but at Zero Hedge, its the non de plume of any male writer on the site.  At one time, there were over 30 writers using the Tyler Durden handle.

Zero Hedge has some good stuff, but mostly, it sells shrill financial apocalyptic hysteria.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

TooTall said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



so you know several of them... do you really care or is it you don't like the idea that they live in poverty and you can't... what is the percentage of that lot of Americans that do it ??? .01% ???? .001% ???? .0001% ???? or do you really know ... I know for a fact that welfare alone has dropped 13% in this last year and it has dropped ever sense Bill Clinton signed into law that the max you can be on welfare is 5 years... at .01% thats 3.5 million people getting 450 dollars a month .. wow that's a killing they are getting HUH... ... they problem you have and all republicans have is they don't take the time to look at real percentages ...  they can't accept the idea that there are people out there who just don't care anymore about life ...where you get to support their meager existence of a life ... that's just drives republicans up the wall the fact that we pay a billion dollars a year on just welfare... that drives you all nuts ... but to spend 500 billion dollars on killing 150,000 Muslims is fine with you ... go figure...


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *Because the largest declines in labor
> ...



Dude?
Seriously...first YOU are spinning the conversation.
Step away and try to comprehend WHAT is actually being talked about, NOT what you THINK is being talked about, that may help you here.

Second you take yourself WAY to seriously, do you see yourself as some kind of Obamian Ambassador?

Now again, don't project what you THINK we were discussing to be what you have DECIDED we were discussing...


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *Because the largest declines in labor
> ...



I'm laughing at you Billy Boi...you accuse me of "spinning" and yet the post is 97% CBO words, too funny.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

oreo said:


> O.K. LoneLaughter--I have given you a lot of time to basically answer a simple question regarding employer liabilities other than wages.  You are either furiously trying to look up the answer to a very basic question and will post later after you find out what they are--or your best option at this time is to avoid it--because after you get through with the answer to that question, you can bet there will be more.
> 
> I really don't mind debating people who speak their minds on topics.  What irritates me is people, like you, who try to sway opinions by misrepresenting themselves and or their background and experience and that's exactly what you have done.
> 
> ...



you know you make these angry remarks here thats fine ... but to say ACA is A WMD without any real knowledge on it, is showing your political bias ... because nobody really knows yet ... here's what I know their are companies out there where the state is fully implemented with the ACA .... usually a state that the dem are in majority... the business people who I personally know say its has almost cut their health care cost in half or by a third ... I personally know that its cut my health care by half in Colorado ... but to say its going to cost you through the nose without any factual statement to us  here, where you as a employer are saying that you went ahead and sign up with health care ... then that could give us all some sort of perspective in what you are talking about ... but just blurting out hearsay doesn't cut it ... you see, for every one you show, I too can show you the opposite ... I think it is based on where you live ... its kind of looking that way... when I hear of a plan that cost someone a lot of money the state is usually run by republicans ... we all know the republicans state run aren't participating in the health care plans as they should to make it work for a lower cost ... so until they get with the program, its not just us liberals who are paying less should you complain to, its the politicians in your state you should be complaining too ... this is what I'm seeing ... republican state paying through the nose ... dem state cut to 1/3 to 1/2 that's what I know ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



like always you missed the whole thing ... those 97% of CBO words, you seem not to be able to comprehend what they mean ... show us where the CBO say is will lose jobs ... show us one place in all of the CBO'S statements where it says the ACA will lose jobs ....that was my whole point here...  it says people won't have to work so much .... maybe a part time job, or no job at all ... they still can to get their health care ... meaning that one person in the family can work full time the other part time or not at all ... thats what they are trying to tell you .... you on the other hand see it as at not working at all ...meaning while the other stays home to take care of family operations ... instead of letting your kids run wild  during the day ... don't you get what they are saying here ??? or are you so political blinded in what is being said here ... it amazes me how blind you republicans are think about it ... 

1) baby sitter who you may know or not $200 dollars a week 

2) or a person in your family staying home raising the children... 

that's about $860 dollars a month you don't have to fork out to some one now ... if they work, the second person, that  wage they might get, they get to keep or  spend it in their community ... or fix their home...or buying a home, or buying a car, what ever their little heart desires ... you republicans just don't get it ... all you know and see is how to bitch when you are force to comply to a mandate ... that's it ... none of you have a vision of the big picture at all...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



what sad  this laughing jack ass here, he tries to slam you and just can't  seem to do it well at all ... or  point out in all of those 97% words that he's so proud about, where it say the ACA will lose jobs ... the problem you have Laughing jack ass( your new Indian name) is you have no idea what your talking about and you just go slammed once again ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



the original post here is called
 "New CBO report is devastating for Obamacare " 
the original source was 
this
CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post
it was said by John Boehner that the CBO report says it will cost us Jobs ... he came to the press and said it will cost us jobs... Mitch McConnall came to the press he said it will cost us jobs ... many on these boards are saying it is costing us jobs ...when clearly where you don''t get it DUDE, is you don't have to work full time anymore to get your health care ... that's all its saying ... that's what Ive been saying from the get go  ... I said it's not costing jobs but it allows you to work part time or not at all ... where you rocket scientist seem to not get it ... then you start ranting to us about what the CBO report said ...I have a pdf file of the cbo's report ... I know what it says and you question our ability in what it was saying... when you all say it cost us jobs ...when I said no it doesn't... it allows you not to have to work full time or not at all ... how is that so devastating to the country for you not to have to work full time or not at all ...


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Let us start here Billy Boi....the conversation was about whether or not the report was good news about the ACA....you just don't seem to be able to grasp the context of the conversation, is that better for you now?

*
like always you missed the whole thing ... those 97% of CBO words, you seem not to be able to comprehend what they mean ... show us where the CBO say is will lose jobs ... show us one place in all of the CBO'S statements where it says the ACA will lose jobs ....that was my whole point here...  it says people won't have to work so much .... maybe a part time job, or no job at all ... *

What it actually says Billy Boi is that those who are at the low end of the income spectrum will be the ones adversely affected....whether boy the actual CUTTING of hours which it says WILL happen...or because those ALREADY not making enough will choose to work less. THESE are the same people YOU will argue need this "mythical" living wage bullshit.

Again you are projecting, it is YOU who simply cannot understand what he is reading.

* you on the other hand see it as at not working at all ...meaning while the other stays home to take care of family operations ... instead of letting your kids run wild  during the day ... don't you get what they are saying here ??? or are you so political blinded in what is being said here ... it amazes me how blind you republicans are think about it ... *

Two things...first AGAIN you are NOT reading the report, YOU are telling me what YOU think it says and all I did was QUOTE the actual report giving you what it ACTUALLY says....

Section C is dealing with those ALREADY on the low end of the wage scale..Billy Boi on your best day you could never tell me what I think..


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 9, 2014)

Billye...one question for you.  Who is going to pay for all this healthcare of those who no longer will be in the job market?


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Poor Billy Boi...you butted into a conversation that was already taking place and unsuccessfully tried to take it over....not happening, like it or not the report admits that the ACA will suppress labor on the lower end of the wage scale, you lose.


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

*Because the largest declines in labor
supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
and fringe benefits)[/COLOR]**and the impact on the overall economy
will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
hours worked.*

Lets start here Billy Boi, shall we?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



no it doesn't it says labor on the lower end of the wages don't have to work in that lower end any more and worry about their health care ...you lose  :that's what I've been saying all along


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> *Because the largest declines in labor
> supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
> the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
> and fringe benefits)[/COLOR]**and the impact on the overall economy
> ...




as I said it doesn't say anywhere in there you will lose jobs


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Billy, I just have one question for you.   If those 2 million leave the workforce who do you suppose will pay their subsidies for healthcare?


----------



## oreo (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



I think this has been all over national news regarding the consequences of the employer mandate.  Which of course, was wisely postponed by Democrats until after the mid-term election in November.  Yet employers are and have been reacting to it over the last several months.  They are preparing themselves.



> ObamaCare's impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act gives businesses an incentive to cut workers' hours below the 30-hour-per-week threshold at which the employer mandate to provide health insurance kicks in. White House economists dismiss such evidence as anecdotal, but BLS data show that the workweek in low-wage sectors sank to a record low in July &#8212; just before the Obama administration delayed enforcement of the employer mandate until 2015.
> 
> In the interest of an informed debate, we've compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare's employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Jan. 31, our ObamaCare scorecard included 401 employers with more than 100 school districts among them. Recently, IBD explained that a big minimum wage hike alongside the employer mandate would add to pressure on employers to cut workers to part-time, complicating the goal of reducing inequality.


ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com
_You can click on the link to see which employers they are referring too.
_



> The list of companies moving to cut hours for part-time workers continues to grow, as employers look to keep staffers below the 30-hour threshold set by the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> The Obama administration announced in July that it would delay the so-called employer mandate until 2015. ObamaCare requires that companies with 50 or more employees provide health insurance benefits to every full-time worker, considered to be anyone who logs an average of 30 or more hours a week.
> 
> ...


With Eye on ObamaCare, Companies Move to Cut Workers? Hours | Fox Business


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

tennisbum said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



  thats if your suppose comes to reality ... which in reality we know it won't ... what the cbo was trying to say and conservatives like yourself only catch the clutch phrases ... what they are try to say here is they will no longer have to worry about getting health care ... that's it...

as for who is paying for it ... again you are assuming that these people aren't paying for their health care ... nit always true ....as for who pays in the ACA bill it explains in full detail how they generate capitol for medicaid ... because that's what you're trying to talk about here is medicaid being paid for... do you remember when Boehner was trying to get the tax removed from these medical supply companies and drug companies ... well that's why the dems said no ... you see the majority of the cost to medicaid is pay for by those companies taxes... they are charged 2.2% right off the top ... as for the tax payer paying for it, I doubt it  ...


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> tennisbum said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Really?  Not according to the CBO report.  Something tells me you think you are more informed than the CBO when you make such an asinine statement "which in reality we know it won't"


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

oreo said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



come back when you have a credible source ... FOX NOISE WILL NEVER never be a credible source for any information at all ... you can posy all of the lies you want from FOX NOISE I won't waste my time to prove to you how wrong they are ... its a waste ... try again ... Jesus when are you nut jobs going to learn ... NOBODY ACCEPTS FOX NOISE AS A SOURCE ... ACCEPT RIGHT WING NUT JOBS ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 9, 2014)

Here' what its all about ... Republicans don't like mandates unless it benefits themselves ... Its that plain its that simple... Republicans don't like the idea that you are no longer forced to have to work, so  now you can get health care ... They hate the idea that a person can stay home and get health care and they don't have to work for it ... So do we dems we have to work too to pay for them you're not the only ones who work...  But you don't see us whining about the few that don't work... Over the many who do...   Now we don't have to worry about health care ... Weather they have a job or they just lost it ... Republicans don't like the idea that a person who just lost their job and sits home get unemployment and their health care ... This pisses them off beyound belief ... I say tuff deal with it


----------



## oreo (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Investors daily--also remarked--which you want to ignore also.  Look it's as plain as the nose on your face.  Employers with more than 50 employees are cutting their full time workers to part-time--working no more than 29 hours per week to get out of paying for their Obamacare insurance.

There will be NO full time workers at McDonald's--Walmart--and many other large corporations.  The list is growing daily.

*Now what exactly does this do to the worker?* They are bringing home less take home pay because they're now part-time and they are getting kicked on to the exchanges as they are mandated to purchase their own insurance--otherwise they face a penalty.

Second phase--MEANING that there is less expendable cash in their pockets--going into the Third phase--they can't run to the mall to purchase goods--Fourth phase--meaning that since less cash is going into the mall--STORE owners will start laying off employees--meaning we end up in another severe recession and it's all because of Obamacare.

It's really not Rocket Science it's just how our economy works.







*Welcome to your hope and change!*


----------



## tennisbum (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Here' what its all about ... Republicans don't like mandates unless it benefits themselves ... Its that plain its that simple... Republicans don't like the idea that you are no longer forced to have to work, so  now you can get health care ... They hate the idea that a person can stay home and get health care and they don't have to work for it ... So do we dems we have to work too to pay for them you're not the only ones who work...  But you don't see us whining about the few that don't work... Over the many who do...   Now we don't have to worry about health care ... Weather they have a job or they just lost it ... Republicans don't like the idea that a person who just lost their job and sits home get unemployment and their health care ... This pisses them off beyound belief ... I say tuff deal with it


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

william the wie said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



I do, but I would chalk that up to not enough time for real data to be generated yet.
Lot's to be played out yet.


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



LOL, poor Billy.

*no it doesn't it says labor on the lower end of the wages don't have to work in that lower end any more and worry about their health care ...you lose  :that's what I've been saying all along*

Uh...Billy?
Let me get this straight....

People ALREADY not making very much choose to work less (and make less) is a good thing?

That your point?


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

*Let's keep it in perspective Billy Boi....*

*For example, some provisions will raise effective
tax rates on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the
amount of labor that some workers choose to supply*

It is ascribing the "choice" to being the dodging of taxes.....not to mention this....you are saying they will choose to work less BECAUSE they have Health Insurance that;

A) They Didn't have prior to the Law

and.....

B) That they aren't paying for now....you go ahead and run with that.


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

Further....

*The ACA also will exert conflicting
pressures on the quantity of labor that employers
demand, primarily during the next few years*

But you are claiming this isn't true, why did they include it in the report?


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

*Because the largest declines in labor
supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers,
the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries,
and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy
will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in
hours worked.*

ok....

*Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA
will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate
labor compensation over the 2017&#8211;2024 period, compared
with what it would have been otherwise*

It's "good" because the adverse effects are smaller because they will ONLY effect the "low wage" earners...um, ok.


----------



## oreo (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...




To add:  This is what our Federal Reserve Chairman stated--Ben Bernanke: 





> He also highlighted congressional testimony from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who told lawmakers *that employers are hiring part-time workers to avoid the employer mandate.*


With Eye on ObamaCare, Companies Move to Cut Workers? Hours | Fox Business

Target and Home Depot announced last week--that they were sending their part time employees onto the exchanges to purchase their own insurance. 
Target to Drop Health Insurance for Part-Time Workers - Bloomberg
Home Depot Sending 20,000 Part-Timers to Health Exchanges - Bloomberg

 But to a die hard liberal it's not happening because OBAMA didn't tell them that.  They remind of Bagdad Bob--lol.


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

*The reduction in CBO&#8217;s projections of hours worked
represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent
workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
2.5 million in 2024.*

But you said this wasn't happening....?


----------



## Antares (Feb 9, 2014)

*The decline in fulltime-
equivalent employment stemming from the ACA
will consist of some people not being employed at all and
other people working fewer hours;*

LOL...Billy????

The unemployed and the low wage earners are baring the brunt of the loss..CLEARLY good news. the brunt


----------



## Meister (Feb 9, 2014)

Ebola said:


> Y'all be hatin.
> 
> Ima on Medicaid, and I been on it since 2000.



Your point?


----------



## william the wie (Feb 9, 2014)

Antares said:


> *The decline in fulltime-
> equivalent employment stemming from the ACA
> will consist of some people not being employed at all and
> other people working fewer hours;*
> ...


Unfair, This argument requires elementary school numaracy and as Barbie taught us, "Math is hard."


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 9, 2014)

L.K.Eder said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You're the best teacher ever!


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 10, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> the original post here is called
> "New CBO report is devastating for Obamacare "
> the original source was
> this
> CBO: Health-care law will mean 2 million fewer workers - The Washington Post



While true, the second paragraph in  the WaPo linked to the CBO report.


----------



## MeBelle (Feb 10, 2014)

Toro said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > fwiw there are two (2) tyler durden's.
> ...



I was referring to this:

Tyler Durden - Fight Club Wiki


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 10, 2014)

Antares said:


> Further....
> 
> *The ACA also will exert conflicting
> pressures on the quantity of labor that employers
> ...



nobodys claiming it isn't true ... what they are saying is now they don't have to accept the demands of a employer who says to you, its my way or the highway ... when bill clinton was in office, I remember employers were doing every thing the could to keep you ... then after the republicans got into power and fucked everything up, it was back to the ole my way or the highway mentality of the employer ... now the employee can say "lets take to the highway" and go to a different job ... when it comes available... where these my way or the highway owners deserve what the get with their 
arrogants ... incompetent workers ... where you republicans can't stand the Idea that the American worker don't have to worry about losing their health care when quitting ... that Idea just kills you republicans ... because you can no longer hold their lives in your hands ...


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 10, 2014)

MeBelle60 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



yeah thats what they were referring to the fight clib ... you do say the stupidest shit ... they were referring to the writer and you know it ... your attempt here to make them look foolish ... once again you've shown us your inability to debate... just spin spin spin ... the writer is a right wing nut job whose whole life intention is mislead the people when it comes to conservative thinking ... so riiiiiiight we pick the fighter... right the guy that gets their brains knocked around on a weekly bases ... idiot!!!!


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 10, 2014)

Antares said:


> *The reduction in CBO&#8217;s projections of hours worked
> represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent
> workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
> 2.5 million in 2024.*
> ...



no I didn't stop putting words into my mouth ..I clearly said where does it say jobs will be lost because of the ACA thats it ... thats what Ive said ...all you posted is one section of the CBO report that you don't like the Idea of it ... if these companies don't like the idea of the employee saying to them sorry buddy, I need more money, or I want to work part time, or I'm just sick and tired of your bull shit, they can ... that's what it's all about  here ... you as a employee saying to your employer, you don't care what you want employer, if I don't like what your doing to me I quit ... then go to the next employer... sooner or later these arrogant employers will get it ... if they want their company to run smooth then listen to the will your worker instead of demanding ... and you republicans don't like this idea ...you republicans don't like the Idea you can no longer hold the power over a employees head ... that's thought its killing you ... to think a employee of yours can say shove it buddy, I'll take the highway and not have to worry about their health care ... one less  stress on the american worker


----------



## billyerock1991 (Feb 10, 2014)

oreo said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



you know I've never seen where a part time worker got health care in any company ... I'm not saying they don't ... I'm just saying I'm not aware of any my wife who works as a human resource consultant for many companies said to me, that she's not aware of any company that pays their part time workers their health care ... but their might be some, so your point is what here ???


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 10, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Further....
> ...



In other words, they have the exact same options now they did 5 years ago.


----------



## oreo (Feb 10, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...




Well if you read the Target link (above)-they had a medical insurance plan for part time workers that hardly anyone participated in--so they have decided to eliminate that--so that their part time employees will be forced to go onto the exchanges to purchase their own health care.  If they don't they face a penalty.

Yes there are plenty of corporations that do offer their part time employees the option of participating in a company sponsored medical insurance plan.  

The point being made here--is that there are companies that are hiring only part time workers to avoid the cost of Obamacare--and there are also companies that are cutting back the hours of full time employees to no more than 29 hours a week to avoid the cost of Obamacare.  _IOW--it's much cheaper for corporations/small business owners etc. to turn all of their full time employees into no more than 29 hour a week part time employees than to pay for their medical insurance as mandated under Obamacare._

Now for those people who work for small business (less than 50 employees) that already have a sponsored employer based medical coverage plan.  These people are experiencing this.


*Again--it's not IF Obamacare will affect you it's WHEN.
*


----------



## Antares (Feb 10, 2014)

billyerock1991 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > *The reduction in CBOs projections of hours worked
> ...



*yet in all of your attempts here trying to spin your post, it doesn't say it will cause jobs to be lost now does it ... it says "them not being employed" ... it doesn't say there's no jobs available for them , now does it .... iy says them not being employed... 
*


Parse this.....

*The decline in fulltime-
equivalent employment stemming from the ACA
will consist of some people not being employed at all and
other people working fewer hours*

Now...."The decline in full time employment"......and "consist of some people not working"....

Did you want to make the case the context of those two phrases used together DOESN'T mean that jobs will be lost?

I feel sorry for you...it must be hard to live with a simple brain unable to understand what you are actually reading....

(smile) Poor Billy.....deflect run, parse....


----------



## Mac1958 (Feb 10, 2014)

Moved....


----------



## hortysir (Feb 10, 2014)

Truthseeker420 said:


> 2 days and 8 pages of posts and all we have is right wing spin.



While you provide nothing to the discussion except a piece of shit Sean Penn.

And, BTW, as much as I like the sentiment of your signature area......Baseball has been infiltrated by the Japanese, nobody knows the origin of a hot dog anymore, apple pies are in the freezer aisle after the apples are picked by illegal immigrants and packed who-knows-where, and Chevrolets are now made in China


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 10, 2014)

Have any nutters come to this thread to issue a retraction yet? Integrity, anyone?


----------



## Antares (Feb 10, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Have any nutters come to this thread to issue a retraction yet? Integrity, anyone?



You've been bitch slapped up one side and down the other.

Run along and jerk off over Hillary's picture.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 10, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Have any nutters come to this thread to issue a retraction yet? Integrity, anyone?
> ...



Funny.......I didn't feel a thing. 

How many jobs did the CBO say would be lost, again?


----------



## Antares (Feb 10, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I invite you to take the CBO Report and use it to disprove one point I made with it...

Of course your problem will be that I only used THEIR words to make their points....

You lose he/she/it.


----------



## oreo (Feb 10, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



*Your health care--Dictator and Chief* just postponed the employer MANDATE *again*--now until 2016?  _I believe they have FINALLY realized just how devastating to the economy--in lost jobs and full time workers becoming part time workers overnight--should the law be enforced._
White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-size employers until 2016 - The Washington Post


And of course* again-*-Obama usurped his constitutional authority to do it.



> Generally speaking, you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law, lawlessly. I mean, this is stuff that you do in a banana republic. It&#8217;s as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants and any provision. It&#8217;s now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election, and it&#8217;s changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do. &#8230; It&#8217;s not incompetence. Willful breaking of the constitutional order &#8212; where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter a law 27 times after it&#8217;s been passed?


Krauthammer: These ObamaCare changes are getting so endemic, ?nobody even complains? anymore « Hot Air






*Welcome to your hope and change!*


----------



## itfitzme (Feb 11, 2014)

I gotta wonder if anyone gets that the effect of ACA is *a benefit* to individuals in the labor force. 

With some percentage deciding to work fewer hours, supply of labor is less than it would otherwise be.  

Demand for labor is expected to continue to be higher than would otherwise be expected as GDP continues to trend towards potential GDP.

The combination of reduced supply and increased demand has a net positive effect.  This means that individuals participating in the labor force will find jobs more readily.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 11, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



Dear Steve: As such, what the Republicans and Christian Right can offer in response
is IF ALL taxpayers have to pay for ALL health care for ALL people, then petition to 
INCLUDE AS A CONDITION FOR UNIVERSAL COVERAGE
THAT ALL PEOPLE GO THROUGH SPIRITUAL HEALING
to reduce or remove the causes of cancer, criminal illness, unnatural homosexuality
caused by abuse, pedophilia, drug addictions, cutting self-harm or eating disorders, etc.

So either invest money into proving this works medically for all people of all faiths
so it is not religiously imposed or discriminating.

or if people do not agree to these terms, then divide the programs by party.

And people who believe in covering their members FREELY and VOLUNTARILY
by spiritual healing and charitable health care not forced by govt, can go with one system.

And people who want to go with federal mandates, but want drug abuse
and abortion and free choice to pay for these consequences, can fund another system.

So give them want they want.
And if they dont like the conditions it takes to cover all people, they will agree to separate.


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 11, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> I gotta wonder if anyone gets that the effect of ACA is *a benefit* to individuals in the labor force.
> 
> With some percentage deciding to work fewer hours, supply of labor is less than it would otherwise be.
> 
> ...



Dear itfitzme:
don't forget the human factor of free will and consent.
If people don't consent to work to pay for a program or a solution,
no matter how well it works, if they do not agree voluntarily
it is involuntary servitude.

I pointed out before, that spiritual healing is free effective and would cut the costs of
crime and medical care so much that more people could be saved and served.

But this must be freely chosen or it does not work. Spiritual healing is based on forgiveness therapy to heal the mind and spirit in order to heal the body and relations with others.
it can never be forced. All the recovery programs from AA to demonic deliverance to overcome addiction and severe ills are all based on FREE participation and chioce to change. or these systems do not work and the people remain sick and stuck.

So even with this GREAT solution, it CANNOT be mandated by government.
So neither can insurance or any other solution that is GREAT and would help people.
Spiritual healing works even better and it is free and cures disease while insurance does not. So if it cannot be mandated as a requirement, how can insurance be?

As for involuntary servitude, look at the taxdollars and labor of Americans that goes into public costs to pay for crimes and also health care/ER hospitalization caused by criminals.

If our laws do not make the convicted criminals pay and work for their own costs they incurred themselves by lawless behavior

what makes you think lawabiding citizens who committed no crimes deserve or agree to pay these costs for them?

Why mandate that a certain tax on income from labor from "people who commit no crimes"
should pay for cost INCURRED BY PEOPLE WHO DO.

Don't you think that is backwards. Shouldn't the govt be in charge of enforcing laws, holding wrongdoers responsible in order to deter crimes since they cost too much?

Why keep raising the taxes and costs on lawabiding citizens who WORK for a living
and adding the expenses of people who don't?

Is this sustainable or ethical? Is it consistent with enforcing laws, encouraging and rewarding lawabiding conduct, and holding wrongdoers responsible for crimes or damages?

Do you as working taxpayer agree to pay your labor and taxes into this system?
I don't. it makes no sense and is killing the economy and turning people against
each other politically and ruining government that is supposed to be defending laws
not charging taxpayers for crimes to create jobs for bureaucrats profiting from not solving these problems.

This is involuntary servitude for anyone else besides just me who NEVER AGREED
to work under these conditions of political and economic slavery of the working people. Taxed without being represented.
Now facing mandates under a business contract and terms with insurance corporations we didn't agree to sign our names to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> I gotta wonder if anyone gets that the effect of ACA is *a benefit* to individuals in the labor force.
> 
> With some percentage deciding to work fewer hours, supply of labor is less than it would otherwise be.
> 
> ...



I wonder if you get that you are full of shit.

Let me explain, in detail, why. People have always been able to chose to not to work, Obamacare did zip to benefit anyone who wants to do something like that. In fact, I can easily argue that the increased premiums and deductibles, coupled with a legal requirement, aka mandate, to have insurance even if you have enough money to pay for any medical care you need, actually discourages people in that situation from pursuing their dreams. That is speculative though, so we will skip going into detail about that, and simply explode your claim that this is good for the individual.

The CBO has projected that low income individuals will be forced to chose between earning more money and complying with the new taxes. You can blather all day long about how this is a good thing, but you are limiting their choices, which is never good. They used to be able to pick up more hours in order to be able to afford to buy their child some new clothes or a computer. If they do that now they will be faced with a sharp increase in both their premiums and their deductibles. Not good.

The CBO also projects that some businesses will reduce employee hours, and even staffing, to avoid the higher taxes on employees that exist under Obamacare. Yes, they say the numbers will be small, but in a workforce of around 200 million even small percentage turns into a pretty significant real world impact. I agree with them that this will be offset, in the long run, by other jobs created elsewhere, but it still is a negative impact that hurts the individual, even if it is good for the group.

And, finally, we come to the last proof that this is not good for the individual, the fact that all of this will force some people to work more in order to stay in the same place. That's right, the CBO actually said that Obamacare will make it worse for some people. The reason for this is quite simple, this is an after income tax. That means that, unlike an increase in income tax that people is passed on as a reduction in income, this is actually paid out of pocket. This has a more direct impact on people who pay it, and it turns out that this affects them in different ways than taxes that they don't directly pay.

Feel free to cherry pick the CBO report in an attempt to refute my arguments, you will fail. The reason for that is I am not cherry picking, I am actually using the entire report to show the obvious negative effects of Obamacare on the individual. The collectivists and statists see this as progress, which is why they are willing to lie about it. The individualists, like me, see this as slavery, which is why we oppose it with truth.


----------



## william the wie (Feb 11, 2014)

The deciding factor will not be how many jobs this idiocy costs but how many deaths will be attributed to it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 11, 2014)

oreo said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Nah. An adjustment. Big law. Needs tweaking. Normal people can grasp that fact. 

How are you coming along with drafting your apology? Making progress?


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



He needs no apology for you.

Just how many tweaks does the president get?  Enough to change the law entirely?  Tweaking to circumvent congress?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 11, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



How the fuck would you know if I deserve an apology or not? Are you even aware of what I was referring to? Go ahead.....tell me what I was referring to. 

He has not changed the law entirely. What he is doing is called ADMINISTERING the law. Cool, huh?!


----------



## Meister (Feb 11, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



You would never deserve an apology, Lone Goofball. 

He is incrementally changing the law.  Not only that, he's playing politics with the law to benefit the democrats with the timing of the implementation to offset (in his opinion) the damage it has created in the upcoming election cycle.  
That is not "ADMINISTERING".


----------



## Antares (Feb 11, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



OOOOOOO the little boy is testy today, he does not have the authority to do what he is doing, you are just to stupid to know it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 11, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I have no problem grasping the fact that Obama is doing everything he can to delay the massive problems that will destroy his promises that government can fix anything as long as he possibly can, the part I have trouble grasping is why you think anyone is having trouble seeing the motives.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 11, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I believe he has the authority. It will certainly be challenged. Let's see how that works out.


----------



## Antares (Feb 11, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Logic then dictates that he can do anything he wants with  any law he wants to change.


----------



## Antares (Feb 11, 2014)

Antares said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...




Oh wait...he is see imigration


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 11, 2014)

How many jobs did the CBO report say will be lost? Anyone?


----------



## Ropey (Feb 11, 2014)

Meister said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And sometimes it's not so incrementally. Health care is now a tax.

That's rather a large increment and he wants to tax the Fed next. First comes 'transparency'.

Which President Obama's administration clearly lacks an understanding that transparency is  a two way street.

Otherwise it becomes something else.

*Political hit lists.* 

Which the Democrats are quite knowledgeable about. The Clinton's & President Obama. That's where they really meet.


----------



## hortysir (Feb 11, 2014)

"Americans are CHOOSING to work fewer hours"




Wonder why.........

It Doesn?t Pay to Work | Power Line



> As quantitied, and explained by Alexander, &#8220;*the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income & benefits than to earn a gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.*&#8220;


----------

