Dimwit Congressman says working less due to Obamacare means more kids get tucked in a

[RandomVariable]

Wow. Just wow.

What? Tuck the kids into the back seat at night because you've lost your job and you're living out of your car is now going to be a good thing?

What drugs are these people freaking on?

You don't even have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Oooh a newbie.

Do tell. Educate me progressive. But do stay within the boundaries of the OP.

Number one: Did you watch the Congressional hearing?

 

[RandomVariable]

All you righties are drinking from your rightie fountain. Not interested.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So I have to take an unplanned distribution from my IRA account to have money on hand
to cover my deductible thanks to ObaaCare and people can decide to not work full time
so they can take advantage of subsidies that I end up paying for.

The Liberals would respond...
Yeah so what's your point...

All you righties are drinking from your rightie fountain. Not interested.

Then why you posting fairy tales?

 

[SwimExpert]

You know, this guy might be an idiot, but he's accidentally hitting on a bit of wisdom. Not about Obamacare of course. But about the strength of our modern economy. The "good ol' days" when our economy was most robust, single income households were the norm. Nowadays, most people would starve if they tried it. The total number of jobs available in our economy, relative to our population, probably would have meantx a labor shortage back in those days when the economy was built around single income households. But now, the economy is built around the two income household.

Single income households could be the norm because the norm didn't require that much. Washing machines were at best wringer washers, clothes dried on a line. Televisions had a few different sizes and were all black and white. There were no computers, x boxes, cell phones or $300.00 sneakers. Dishes were washed and dried by hand. Clothes had tobe ironed to look decent. Women were homemakers because it took a LOT to make a home. There was no such thing as throwing something in the microwave. Without all the stuff people want they could live on one middling to low income today.

Ugh, I guess you're one of those people who think that a person can't be in poverty unless they live without electricity or running water.

 

[SwimExpert]

What drugs are these people freaking on?

Obamacare medical marijuana would be my guess.

 

[Clementine]

Parents losing their jobs is not a good thing. If one parent could support the family and pay for the mortgage and everything else, then it's great to have a full-time parent. If one income doesn't cover the cost of living, they are screwed big time!!!

People know how important being with their children are and they certainly don't need some liberal politician telling them that. Most parents take every opportunity to spend time with family, but at the same time, need to support them financially.

If wouldn't be bad if there was a short time off before finding another job and the time spent with family in between would be great. When people lose their jobs and realize that things are looking grim as far as finding another, the time spent at home would be very stressful because they'd worry about how they'll take care of their children.

The mentality coming from the liberals in Washington is that socialist policies will ensure that wealth is redistributed so that no one has to work if they would rather not. They assume that the rest will keep up the good work so they continue to have money to redistribute. When, not if, that fails to be the case, we're all doomed. It's happened before and it will happen again.

I don't understand why liberals think living in a socialist and politically correct state would be a good thing. Unless Obamacare is going to cover mandatory lobotomies, they will never control us.

 

[Clementine]

You know, this guy might be an idiot, but he's accidentally hitting on a bit of wisdom. Not about Obamacare of course. But about the strength of our modern economy. The "good ol' days" when our economy was most robust, single income households were the norm. Nowadays, most people would starve if they tried it. The total number of jobs available in our economy, relative to our population, probably would have meantx a labor shortage back in those days when the economy was built around single income households. But now, the economy is built around the two income household.

Single income households could be the norm because the norm didn't require that much. Washing machines were at best wringer washers, clothes dried on a line. Televisions had a few different sizes and were all black and white. There were no computers, x boxes, cell phones or $300.00 sneakers. Dishes were washed and dried by hand. Clothes had tobe ironed to look decent. Women were homemakers because it took a LOT to make a home. There was no such thing as throwing something in the microwave. Without all the stuff people want they could live on one middling to low income today.

Ugh, I guess you're one of those people who think that a person can't be in poverty unless they live without electricity or running water.

No, dipwad, she is saying the cost of living used to be a lot more manageable. We didn't waste money on stupid shit, like $300 sneakers and didn't have to buy expensive cell phone plans for our kids. We didn't have cable bills and a bunch of appliances running up the bills. And the tax burden wasn't as bad. Now everything is taxed to death.

 

[SwimExpert]

Single income households could be the norm because the norm didn't require that much. Washing machines were at best wringer washers, clothes dried on a line. Televisions had a few different sizes and were all black and white. There were no computers, x boxes, cell phones or $300.00 sneakers. Dishes were washed and dried by hand. Clothes had tobe ironed to look decent. Women were homemakers because it took a LOT to make a home. There was no such thing as throwing something in the microwave. Without all the stuff people want they could live on one middling to low income today.

Ugh, I guess you're one of those people who think that a person can't be in poverty unless they live without electricity or running water.

No, dipwad, she is saying the cost of living used to be a lot more manageable. We didn't waste money on stupid shit, like $300 sneakers and didn't have to buy expensive cell phone plans for our kids. We didn't have cable bills and a bunch of appliances running up the bills. And the tax burden wasn't as bad. Now everything is taxed to death.

Three hundred dollar sneakers? That's really the argument you want to go with? You really want to imply that that's the norm?

 

[oreo]

People get to tuck their kids in instead of working. (as the unpaid bills pile up) Yup, when you lose your job because of Obamacare, you can spend more time with your children - at the homeless shelter.

Good grief, these people will spin just about anything to try and make it sound good. Lose your job and your home and they want you to be happy being idle.

Lose your insurance due to Obamacare and can't afford to buy a new policy? Tough shit, people, it's no longer a crisis now that the administration granted themselves all the new powers hidden in the law.

Democratic Representative Mark Pocan explains at this congressional budget hearing that people working fewer hours due to Obamacare means more people able to tuck in their kids at night.

Democratic Congressman: Working Less Due to Obamacare Means More Kids Tucked In at Night | Independent Journal Review

Sounds like we have a "male" Nancy Pelosi in congress. What planet did they come from?