calfoxwc Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 This is for all the silly board liberal sheep who parrot everything they read and hear in support of ObamAO ... the truth must surely sink in SOMETIME... I guess Heck won't quote the CBO now. Too bad. Sometimes they had a statement in their favor... that was based on information from... Obamao's people. Like I SAID - the Obamacare hc bill... IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL... so far. Yes, the ENTIRE FREAKIN GIGANTIC MESS Obamao made. And the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT will not over-rule it, I predict. Unless Obamao's "people" have a few Conservative Justices meet an untimely end, so Obamao can get two super marxists in there. And you wonder why Obamao nabbed Hillary for Sec. of State... http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-di...ers_547288.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Cal, Cal, Cal. The CBO is talking about a reduction in the supply of labor, not the number of jobs. This has been twisted for partisan reasons, and you - and probably they - don't know the difference. So I'd be happy to talk about what the CBO said, and I always am. But I'd rather talk to someone who knows what the CBO said, and not what they wish the CBO said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Don't tell LIES Heck' Companies abroad are slashing fulltime labor allready so they will not have to pay for Obammys Mandated CommICare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Anyway... To all of you who aren't Cal or T, the CBO did not say that the bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. It said it would reduce the supply of labor by about half a percentage point over ten years: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply." Essentially, what they're saying is that the program will make people better off, and that some people who now only work in order to keep their health insurance benefits will be able to find better options, like working less and buying insurance on their own, or retiring and buying insurance on their own. It's a measure of workers, mostly the elderly, who will be able to choose to work less because the law provides them more affordable health care options. It's not a measure of jobs that employers will eliminate. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Anyway... To all of you who aren't Cal or T, the CBO did not say that the bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. It said it would reduce the supply of labor by about half a percentage point over ten years: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by a small amount—roughly half a percent—primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply." Essentially, what they're saying is that the program will make people better off, and that some people who now only work in order to keep their health insurance benefits will be able to find better options, like working less and buying insurance on their own, or retiring and buying insurance on their own. It's a measure of workers, mostly the elderly, who will be able to choose to work less because the law provides them more affordable health care options. It's not a measure of jobs that employers will eliminate. Hope that helps. So we get some free shit then work less. So less taxes paid from a reduction of work will help pay for the new health care? I am not knocking on anyones gang here, but this seems to be a precursor for elimination of social security Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 So correct me if I'm actually wrong. You're saying that this number is those who could now not have to work in order to get health coverage and could choose to leave the workforce. And that most will be elderly, correct? Aren't the elderly already on Medicare and if so are you saying the out of pocket for medicare recipients will be lower? I've not heard that from either side. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 So we get some free shit then work less. So less taxes paid from a reduction of work will help pay for the new health care? I am not knocking on anyones gang here, but this seems to be a precursor for elimination of social security No, sort of, and no. For the last time, it's not free. (Of course, I don't imagine this will be the last time someone will suggest that it's "free shit" or "handouts", but I can dream.) People are going to pay for their health insurance. It's still going to be expensive. Secondly, while a reduction in hours worked will reduce the amount those specific people pay in taxes, it's not a large amount of people and it's not going to have an major effect on whether or not the bill gets paid for. According to the CBO, of course, the bill is paid for - and then some. It reduces the deficit. Again, let me remind you: when Bush put through a prescription drug bill that cost almost the same amount as Obama's health care bill, he did it without paying for one cent of it. No new taxes were raised. No new funding mechanisms were proposed. He didn't cut anything to offset the costs. He put it all on the credit card. And not one of you said a thing. Not one. Obama's plan uses a combination of tax hikes, cuts in services, and finds efficiencies to pay for his plan. And the right freaks. And gives speeches about fiscal responsibility. It's a little too much to take without laughing. And Social Security has nothing to do with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 So correct me if I'm actually wrong. You're saying that this number is those who could now not have to work in order to get health coverage and could choose to leave the workforce. And that most will be elderly, correct? WSS Yes. But I should sub in "older people" for "elderly." Most of them will be people of means who can afford to retire or reduce their work hours earlier because there's a way to ensure health insurance coverage without having to get it through their employer. Take a 60 year-old guy who isn't on Medicare yet, but has made and saved enough that he can go out into the individual market and buy insurance for his family. He chooses to do that instead. Of course, people can do that now. This is saying that it will allow more people to do that. His job doesn't disappear. He simply leaves the work force. Someone else will do his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 <H1 class=header>CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers ************************** Twist it anyway you want. But it's exactly opposite of what Obamao promised. That is the point, Heck.</H1> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich. And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address. But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Right hand, blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 I'm not twisting anything. I'm explaining exactly what the CBO means. You're trying to twist it to have it mean something it doesn't mean - that the health care bill would eliminate 800,000 jobs. And so are many Republicans. But that's not what it means. And then you accuse me of twisting it. Ah, it's rich. And the real explanation isn't counter to what Obama promised at all; it's exactly they wanted the health care bill to do - give people more health care options so that people aren't working simply to keep their benefits. That was a problem they wanted to address. But hey, Cal, thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Glad we could clear this up. Umm. A lot of folks will need to pick up an extra part time job because they are being told that they have to buy healthcare insurance or they will get fined!! And if employers dont want to give every mininum wage earner who works for them a raise, they will simply just cut them loose or make them part time workers. Either way everyone will have to buy health care insurance even if they have to work 3 part time jobs to pay for it. Does it sound fair to the average Joe who only earns no more than $10 bucks an hour to tell them they have to buy something when everything in their world is going up due to inflation and devaluation of our dollar. And dont tell me these folks will get it for free; because everyone knows that somebody is going to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Chairman [Paul] Ryan: “t’s been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?” Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : “Yes.”... ************************************** so the director admits that the hc law WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, will DECREASE the work force then, by 800.00 jobs, instead of CREATING JOBS. What the hell are you arguing about? The effect of the bill, in all sorts of parts, does NOT do what it says it will do. Very few Dems who voted for it, READ it. It's a bad, very, very bad bill. And our country cannot afford it, by anyone's estimation, who has any honesty about it. Even Obamao admits some parts have to be fixed or eliminated. The entire bill is unConstitutional, so much so, that the left is trying desperately to stack the deck on the U.S. Supreme Court by trying to intimidate a conservative Justice to not be a part of the vote. Hah. Smaller "labor supply" means fewer jobs = Obamaocare is a gigantic farce that will not be funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 No, Cal. There's a difference between the labor supply and net job creation. They're two different subjects. This is the whole point, which you're missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Oh, stop your quibbling. Labor supply is creating employment for people, right? Or not? What's the freakin definition of "is", now ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 No, that's not what the labor supply is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Then you should have started your own thread. Go talk to the CBO director if ya don't like his message. I TOLD ya that the entire Obamaocare bill was UNConstitutional. But no-o-o-o-o-oo-, you wouldn't listen. "Can you hear me now?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Um, sure. (Backs away slowly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'd be a little skeptical of that job windfall as it looks like lots of peoples care is going to cost more forcing them to stay in or return to the labor pool. We'll see. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 As long as we understand what the CBO is saying, you can be skeptical all you like. Of course, your skepticism is based on your hunch rather than any evidence or data, while the CBO's figures are based on dozens of people crunching numbers for months, but I can't do anything to make you value the latter more than the former, even though you should. As long as we know changes to the labor supply are different than job creation/elimination, I'm good. Yay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I admit it still seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk, and what the definition of "is" is. And I don't think it's my fault. And, I think that if Heck won't take the bet HE again initiated, because of the tomatoes clause, then he's a stimply, oogly-moogly, hopscotch-skipping, egg-laying doosel-wug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Cal, you're priceless. You post something the CBO said about the health care bill because you think it's devastating to the liberal cause. Then you say I'll probably ignore it because it's devastating to the liberal cause. I post that you don't understand what the man is saying, and then explain what he's saying. Suddenly, the CBO man you were just touting and daring me to recognize is saying something that "seems like smoke and mirrors, double talk, and what the definition of "is" is." And it's not your fault that you didn't know what he meant. And for the millionth time, I'll admit I'm ashamed to point out that an idiot doesn't know anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Nonetheless the report is based on too many ifs to use as a selling point. IMO. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Then why do it at all? The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say. Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Heck translation: "The only good evidence, is the evidence that is *Tweaked and Fixed* to say what WE want it to say." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Heck translation: "The only good evidence, is the evidence that is *Tweaked and Fixed* to say what WE want it to say." I would like to know what happened inside your brain and allowed you to come to that conclusion on heck's last statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Cal, what would you like changes in the labor supply to mean, other than what changes in the labor supply mean? You're not helping yourself here. Look, I'll give you the Wiki definition of labor supply. It's a lot like the one I gave. "In mainstream economic theories, the supply of labor is the number of total hours that workers wish to work at a given real wage rate." It's not a measure of the total number of jobs in the economy, is it? And again, I apologize to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Then why do it at all? The point is to use the best available data to measure the effects of legislation. It's not always precise. It's terribly complicated. But we can't ignore the conclusions when they're inconvenient to our arguments, and then trot them out when they say what we want them to say. Plus, we should at least know what the arguments are before we trot them out. Of course I haven't done that here. But why? Well two years ago we made predictions about the improvement of the Browns based on this and that and speculated for a long time. If you don't like 'em the variables killed those prognostications and naysayes said a ha!! Politics ain't a lot different. Hey if healthcare is so much more affordable that a bunch of people will quit their jobs great. I'm self employed and damn tired of getting it in the ass while others skate. Other predictions based on real number might see a different vision. One mans campaign slogan is another mans, uh, well, campaign slogan. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 This is a pretty lousy comparison, and a pretty lousy argument. For one, these aren't campaign slogans, and this isn't politics. These are laws and numbers and math, crunched by geeks. The CBO's design and mission is to be non-partisan, and they do as good a job as you can do in Washington. Comparing it to the predictions of the Browns success is also ridiculous. Also, who told you the Browns were going to be good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Of course I haven't done that here. But why? Well two years ago we made predictions about the improvement of the Browns based on this and that and speculated for a long time. If you don't like 'em the variables killed those prognostications and naysayes said a ha!! Politics ain't a lot different. Hey if healthcare is so much more affordable that a bunch of people will quit their jobs great. I'm self employed and damn tired of getting it in the ass while others skate. Other predictions based on real number might see a different vision. One mans campaign slogan is another mans, uh, well, campaign slogan. WSS Ditto! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.