Posted on 02/04/2014 1:37:39 PM PST by SeekAndFind
I’m done, guys. If we’ve reached the stage of welfare-state decadence where it’s a selling point for a new entitlement that it discourages able-bodied people from working, there’s no reason to keep going. We’ve lost, decisively.
As a great man once said, remember me as I am — filled with murderous rage.
In a statement and conference call featuring top administration officials, the White House tried to beat back an emerging narrative that the CBO report supported claims made by health care reform critics. The CBO report says the Affordable Care Act could lead to a reduction of 2 million full-time workers between 2017 and 2024. The CBO says the reduction would not come via fewer available full-time jobs (as critics of the law have alleged) but “almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”…
“To put that in context, I have no doubt that if we eliminated Social Security and eliminated Medicare, there would be many 95-year-olds that would choose to work more hours than they’re working today just so they could survive, feed themselves and have health insurance,” the official said.
The CBO’s projected reduction in full-time workers, then, “shouldn’t be a significant cause for surprise and it reflects the fact that workers have a new set of options and are making the best choices that they can choose to make for themselves given those options,” the official said.
In other words, it’s not that employers will be offering 2.5 million fewer jobs. It’s that ObamaCare, by subsidizing low earners and expanding Medicaid for the very poor, will incentivize 2.5 million people not to work. Or, if you prefer:
The message from this WH presser: ACA gives workers more choices, including the option to work less.
— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) February 4, 2014
Billions upon billions of dollars in economic productivity up in smoke as workers who’ve stuck with their jobs for the health insurance quit and take a subsidies check from Uncle Sam instead. To the White House, which otherwise bleats about “growth” at every opportunity, this is a feature of the law, not a bug. WaPo’s fact-checker even rushed out a piece this afternoon in defense of their position. The law’s not destroying 2.5 million jobs, says Glenn Kessler, it’s merely inviting 2.5 million employees to quit. How much does it matter to growth, though, if the labor force shrinks on the demand side versus the supply side? Will all, or most, of the vacated positions be filled by younger workers or will they evaporate as businesses downsize (or close down)? If giving people more “choice” in whether to be employed or not is now our cardinal social good, we might as well go for a guaranteed minimum income and clear out all the wage slaves. Let’s see how small we can get the labor force before the wheels come off the economy.
Don’t act surprised, either. Nancy told you this was coming. Look on the bright side: If fewer people working is a sign of economic success, the Obama presidency will be remembered as a golden age.
There is a much better idea, If the members of the mac daddy administration just stopped working against the American people it would save us trillions of dollars.
That statement has got to be the second most stupid thing I have ever heard with the first being listening to anything mac daddy says.
And those who think Obamacare is a good idea will think less work is a good idea. Let’s just kill the economy now.
Gonna have to steal that one.
I think Pelosi said something like “if you want to quit your job on the loading dock and become a street mime, you are now free to follow your dreams” or similar rot.
The gov’t (and the GOPe) have come out against the US peeps.
Where’s my $2500 buck$?
The Democrat mind is a strange place. They ARE effing nuts!
sage advice there nazi pelosi you are one bad actor that needs to shut your mouth
This increases the People's liberty because they no longer HAVE to work.
fUNemployment!
Remember that one?
That is already happening. You've probably heard of myRA; it is the opening salvo to confiscating our retirements, make no mistake. The politicians have had their eye's on that money of ours for decades. Now is the time for them. After they burn through our retirement money a jolly little collapse happens and most of the country starves to death if disease doesn't get them first. That is of course if a juicy world war doesn't break out to speed up the process.
Hey! Quit tryin’ to cheer me up! ;)
Two things I’ve never understood about Democrats/Liberals/Socialists:
a. Why haven’t they aborted themselves out of existence yet?
Answer: This is why they indoctrinate in the schools, to convince the competition’s kids to follow their lifestyle, as well as why they seek to import replacements (high immigration).
b. What happens when the tax dollars that pay for all this ‘free’ chit run out?
Answer: High inflation, a long Depression, revolution or all three.
“The CBO’s projected reduction in full-time workers, then, “shouldn’t be a significant cause for surprise and it reflects the fact that workers have a new set of options and are making the best choices that they can choose to make for themselves given those options,” the official said.”
Thar comment can be translated into the closer truth the official refused to clarify, which is: “Yes, we understand, we created a program that mandated a bunch of new options that created conditions responsible for 2.5 million more Americans to no longer be actively employed. But now the remaining working people and their employers will help somne of thsoe 2.5 millikon to have health insurance anyway, and that’s a good thing.” More litteral translation: “Yes, we know, we grew the number of dependents in the government plantation society.”
<Now that is some WORLD CLASS spin~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No kidding. I’m a pretty smart gal but I had to read that several times and I’m still not sure it makes sense.
I feel like my head is going to explode trying to follow what’s going on these days.
“To put that in context, I have no doubt that if we eliminated Social Security and eliminated Medicare, there would be many 95-year-olds that would choose to work more hours than they’re working today just so they could survive, feed themselves and have health insurance,”
This is the point in the conference call where you have to stick your arm through the phone and bang the “official’s” head on the desk until it splits open!
So...if worker A quits working because he’s receiving a new benefit, don’t workers B, C, and D have to work harder to pay for said benefit? Or is it rich guy E who pays for it? Or is the answer F: we go deeper into debt? Because we know this new freedom from work isn’t the result of cost savings or new efficiences generated by Obamacare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.