White House: When you think about it, 2.5 million fewer people working because of ObamaCare is good news

posted at 3:21 pm on February 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

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:

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The much vaunted social democracies of Northern Europe don’t prop up a middle class by heavily taxing the rich and businesses – they heavily tax the middle class as well.

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Um, there is no middle class in Europe. The goal of every leftist is to destroy the middle class. Crush them between taxes and regulations.

Poor people vote for more subsidies. And rich people just hide their money, while voting for people who will prevent the poor from ever getting out of their hole.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

In a word: No.

besser tot als rot on February 4, 2014 at 8:39 PM

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:16 PM

 
…perhaps you should find a “free rider” post.
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

 
“I don’t know” would’ve been much easier, but it’s too late now. Regardless, I’m guessing you missed your post where you asserted “now affordable”.
 

because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

 
Which handily opened the thread to my
 

who doesn’t want or can’t afford insurance

 
free rider question.
 
Care to try, or should we just assume you don’t know either?

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:39 PM

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’m discussing Social Security, which is currently funded for the next 25 years. But thanks for raising the level of discourse with namecalling.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:15 PM

No it’s not.

besser tot als rot on February 4, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Guys, we’ve now proven what we’ve known all along: the left does not care about facts or evidence. They would rather oppose us out of spite and hatred than ever admit that we were right. They waged a jihad against the laws of economics, and economics kicked their a$ses.

crrr6 on February 4, 2014 at 8:46 PM

…because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

 

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’m discussing Social Security…
 
Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:15 PM

 
So Medicare is the now-affordable medical insurance you were referring to in your initial post, correct?

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:47 PM

These trolls are not defending Obama or Reid or Pelosi or even ObamaCare. They are defending themselves and their desire to force others to fund those who will not work, which, I suspect, includes some of them and/or their immediate family. Early retirement… at their neighbor’s expense…with some healthcare.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Guys, we’ve now proven what we’ve known all along: the left does not care about facts or evidence. They would rather oppose us out of spite and hatred than ever admit that we were right. They waged a jihad against the laws of economics, and economics kicked their a$ses.

crrr6 on February 4, 2014 at 8:46 PM

The strategy now on the LEFT is simple. Deny, Deny, Deny

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 8:50 PM

Anyone else think there will be a conference soon?

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:54 PM

Indeed. Closed door.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Libs lie without effort or guilt like sheeple bleating for want of free food.

SparkPlug on February 4, 2014 at 8:58 PM

People will now actually be able to live on benefits they’ve paid for with their payroll taxes because their medical insurance is now affordable. The horror!

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM

I don’t know what you’re talking about, but I’m discussing Social Security, which is currently funded for the next 25 years. But thanks for raising the level of discourse with name calling.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:15 PM

This has nothing to do with Medicare or Social Security. The White House used that as an analogy, not an example.

kcewa on February 4, 2014 at 8:58 PM

I think Constantine needs a new name. It should be Otto, after the Fish Called Wanda character played by Kevin Kline.

22044 on February 4, 2014 at 9:23 PM

Great, way to go, guys. Ran off another one.
 
This is why we can’t have nice things.

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 9:38 PM

I always knew Kos was a moron, but this takes it to a whole new level.Hysterical

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1275044/-What-do-conservatives-have-against-worker-freedom-and-choice-Lots

lostinjrz on February 4, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Great, way to go, guys. Ran off another one.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 9:38 PM

Oops, sorry. Didn’t know you needed more archive material!

22044 on February 4, 2014 at 9:44 PM

looking forward to mika and joe and the rest of the mj crew try to spin this boondoggle tomorrow am….

lol

cmsinaz on February 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM

I always knew Kos was a moron, but this takes it to a whole new level.Hysterical

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/04/1275044/-What-do-conservatives-have-against-worker-freedom-and-choice-Lots

lostinjrz on February 4, 2014 at 9:39 PM

Quick! Throw some bleach on it before is infects the whole place!

RovesChins on February 4, 2014 at 9:47 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

Whether it could be administered differently is not the question. If you want socialism go somewhere else-the United States was founded to be a representative republic. Get with the program or get the h*ll out. Period.

2L8 on February 4, 2014 at 9:52 PM

Here’s just a few things I found wrong with workers being handed this ‘choice’:

These are 2.3 million full time jobs that aren’t going to be available anymore.

Those 2.3 million employees likely have credit card debts, mortgages, car payments, rent, children to put through school, dental care, any number of demands on their income.

Many will simply not be free to ‘choose’ to work only part time, if they can even find those part time jobs given the competition there will be for those part time jobs.

Many will find that they now need two jobs. Two part time jobs to take the place of their now non-existent full time job that used to meet their necessary expenses.

Since employer are likely to wish to work each employee as many hours as possible, particularly if they are a good employee, these individuals will find that they are now working two jobs at 29.5 hours per week, for a total of 59 hours/week.

In terms of health, working 59 hours/week is bound to take a greater toll on individual health than working 40 hours per week at a normal full time job. This will cause more days lost to illness, and more cost to insurers.

These individuals will find it harder to move up the work or social ladder, their time being consumed with work, their income further stressed by their ObamaCare premiums, deductibles, and copays.

Further, the individual will find less time to spend with family, friends, hobbies, or ‘pursuing their passion’.

That’s some choice the Left is handing working Americans.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 9:54 PM

This is why we can’t have nice things.

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 9:38 PM

You spot a ‘nice thing’, Roger, you just point it out. ;)

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 9:55 PM

It’s obvious that the lefty hive(including the media component) bat signal has been put out for damage control.
.
The Porky in Wackyland ,”Twister” absurdity of these ‘arguments’ defending this Progressive Hindenburg Administration’s signature disaster is a sight to behold.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on February 4, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

The new generation of communists always thinks they can do it better than the last. That’s why totalitarianism continues even though it fails every time.

lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 10:10 PM

rogerb on February 4, 2014 at 8:16 PM

.
I was responding to the assertion in this and another post that jobs are being “lost” due to Obamacare, when in fact they are being voluntarily given up. If you’d like to divert the discussion to something else, perhaps you should find a “free rider” post.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

.
It’s “all-of-the-above”.

listens2glenn on February 4, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Um, there is no middle class in Europe. The goal of every leftist is to destroy the middle class. Crush them between taxes and regulations.
Poor people vote for more subsidies. And rich people just hide their money, while voting for people who will prevent the poor from ever getting out of their hole.
lorien1973 on February 4, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Well it’s a European middle class. But good point.

gwelf on February 4, 2014 at 10:12 PM

Don’t forget to sign up for your MyRA.

wolly4321 on February 4, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

4th String comes in to take the bullets.

A+

Del Dolemonte on February 4, 2014 at 10:30 PM

US Government debt has increased $6.666 trillion since Obama took office.

The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.

When President Obama was first inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt of the U.S. government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. As of Jan. 31, 2014, the latest day reported, the debt was $17,293,019,654,983.61—an increase of $6,666,142,606,070.53 since Obama’s first inauguration.

The total debt of the United States did not exceed $6.666 trillion until July 2003. In the little more than five years of the Obama presidency, the U.S. has accumulated as much new debt as it did in it’s first 227 years.

thatsafactjack on February 4, 2014 at 10:30 PM

The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

The original Steve Jobs built Apple without ObamaCare.

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 10:42 PM

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 10:42 PM

How did we ever survive without the bayams/libfrees of the world?

JAGonzo on February 4, 2014 at 10:52 PM

Straw, mud. Lots of labor.

mud huts for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!

Equality at last.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 10:55 PM

I quit.

docflash on February 4, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Beat you to it.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM

Have you been watching corporate earnings reports? How much easier does it have to be for large corporations to turn a profit? Because they seem to be doing just fine. Like, seriously. I want a number, how many hundreds of billions of dollars must they net before they will raise wages? These people *love* money. They love it more than anything else in the world. So you’re suggesting that, out of the goodness of their hearts, they would ever make a decision to decrease their amount of money in any real structural way. In a way that would support the middle class Americans long for.

Because it is going to have to happen one of two ways. Either corporations will pay enough to provide that lifestyle or the state will provide enough resources to provide that lifestyle. One or the other. Right now, the declines in the middle class tell us that corporate America is shirking its responsibility to provide the middle class lifestyle conservative America longs for and is nostalgic about. The state, in America’s “golden age” played a much heavier burden in maintaining middle class lifestyles than they do now. That is historical fact. Do people think the 40s, 50s, 60s were magical decades in American history *in spite* of the enormous role the federal government paid in sustaining the American middle class? Because that feels profoundly counterintuitive.

So, when is corporate America going to fulfill its part of the bargain. They asked for a massive structural change in tax rates and got it during the Reagan years. And since the Reagan Administration capital gains and income tax rates have stayed within a pretty close range. Nothing compared to the tax rates of America’s “golden” World War II and postwar decades. But they haven’t kept up their end of the bargain. They have responded to getting the tax policy they wanted and disbanding 80% of the labor movement….by lowering wages and slashing employee benefits. It just seems like the last 40 years of tax policy is the proof on conservative philosophy about American standards of living and our level of intimacy with the federal state.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Mostly, they’ve been buying back their own stock (with near 0% fed money) so as not to have to pay dividends.

How’s Dell doing?

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

… says every socialist twit in history, when defending why he wants to do what every predecessor socialist twit failed to do – insisting that he is smarter than the others, and the problem couldn’t possibly be the policies that have failed every f*cking time before, leaving death and misery and destruction in it’s wake.

You’re not any different, f*ckwit. You’re not smarter. Your policies are not better, nor will they work this time.

Go to hell you worthless piece of shit.

Midas on February 4, 2014 at 11:12 PM

2.5 million fewer people working … is good news. Of course it is. And war is good for the economy also.

Let’s bomb Detroit. Then we’re set.

NoPain on February 4, 2014 at 11:14 PM

Mostly, they’ve been buying back their own stock (with near 0% fed money) so as not to have to pay dividends.

How’s Dell doing?

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:09 PM

Bingo.

Corporate America, the rich and Wall Street have thrived under Obama. The big difference between now, the 80′s, 90′s and 00′s is that they are not creating very many jobs. They are buying back stock, outsourcing, merging and acquiring. In the past 10 months I have had 2 different jobs – one went through a merger, the other went through an acquisition by a Fortune 15 company.

What’s different now? Uncertainty about everything except one – the cost of an employee is going up. Companies now have more incentive than ever to run lean, invest offshore and grow inorganically – buying other companies with ultra cheap money, then lay people off.

Obama’s America, people. Where less people working is somehow a good thing.

Chuck Schick on February 4, 2014 at 11:19 PM

Just to play devil’s advocate here, it is not as crazy as it sounds.

Since the beginning of automation there have been common sense sounding predictions that smart machines would eventually replace human workers (or drive the value of their labor down too low to for them to sustain themselves) starting with the most unskilled and then working their way up as the machines got smarter.

As people become unemployable, their removal from the work force will take the form of those people choosing not to work for the limited wages they are offered.

The microchip and the Information Age have greatly accelerated this process.

So we can either provide for the unemployable (including health care), or we can euthanize them.

Of course if machines getting smarter is an unlimited process, we will all eventually become unemployable, so be careful which solution you choose.

fadetogray on February 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM

That’s a joke right? As automation takes over, the cost of produced goods should drop, rendering the standard of living the same at a lower income. It should also free up labor for new and improved goals. If we had leadership.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:21 PM

And you are leaving out the role of FHA subsidized home loans, increases in state support for higher education, the list goes on and on. And that doesn’t even begin to touch the kind of welfare state offered to the poor on the state level. Significantly more generous from the 40s-70s. In fact, working class veterans came up into the middle class because of these programs. They were a major boost to a family’s longterm financial viability. Think of the enormous wealth in homes (before the crash). It was one of the most stable investments and FHA subsidized a lot of home loans in this country, look it up.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Do you ever hear yourself.

Even O’bozo is starting to realize there might be a future in welding. Even O’bozo is realizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac haven’t been such a good idea, except he can’t afford for seniors to lose their life savings and his friends need a sinecure somewhere. If the welfare state was so much more generous in the 60′s why aren’t we all in paradise, now that he has almost double the national debt.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:32 PM

This is really all about people’s moral judgements of others based upon a pseudo religious veneration of the military. Its like you lost the same-sex war, so welfare is the culture war you’re going to win. Even if it means watching your own wages fall along with those people beneath you that you so dislike.

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM

17 trillion in debt. Do you really need rebuttal?

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:39 PM

gotta stop. The Thick is just too thick in that one.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM

Here’s a Doctor that’s had too much of the Obamacare Fiasco.

“The following letter to Aetna from Dr. Held has been reprinted in full.

Dear Mr. Bertolini,

With a deep sense of sadness, I must inform you that I will no longer serve as a physician for Aetna patients under the terms of our contractual agreement, which you most recently unilaterally changed.

I have been privileged and honored to care for thousands of patients covered by Aetna policies since the 1990’s. I have devoted my life to providing the very best, state-of-the-art care to these individuals. We have formed a patient-doctor relationship, which I hope many will chose to continue in spite of my severing ties with Aetna. You see, health insurance has evolved such that insurers and government have inserted themselves smack-dab in the middle of the once sacred patient-doctor relationship. I am called a provider- not a doctor. My patient is now yours- not mine. What I can do as a physician now has strangulating strings and nonsensical numbers attached- to you and government and money-not the best interests of the patients.

Obamacare, the “law of the land”, contains ever-changing-at-the-whim-of-HHS, politically-expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much-less interpret, implement, or comply.

Millions of Americans have lost coverage because of the healthcare law and must now shop on a defective, insecure government website and sign up for more expensive policies through Federal and State exchanges. Only by logging in as a prospective patient did my office manager and I discover that Aetna was selling plans for which I am a provider-effectively selling my services without even asking, much less informing me that my services would be sold on such a site, under the auspices of new terms with which I will not comply.

Then, after the fact, I received a form letter informing me of Aetna’s “new allowables”. I will not sell my services under such terms. While treated as such, patients and doctors are not commodities worthy of such impersonal, inconsiderate, and cavalier treatment. We choose dignity and personal service over disrespect and form letters.

So here we are, you are getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring my services without my consent under terms which are unacceptable to me. Accept this as my official written notice that the changes that you have unilaterally made to our contract are unacceptable to me and make our contract null and void. You must explain this to your patients. You must tell them that they have purchased a product that was misrepresented to them and that you cannot deliver. It saddens me to think of the decreased access to care from actual physicians and the shockingly increased costs Aetna patients will now experience because of your choice to collude with big government rather than collaborate with patients and physicians.

Kristin S. Held, MD”

Murphy9 on February 5, 2014 at 12:21 AM

Let’s see how small we can get the labor force before the wheels come off the economy.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but they’ve already come off.

Even if the GOP takes the Senate in November, Spending and borrowing will not decrease. There will simply be ‘budget gimmicks’ to fool the people to believe the deficit and/or debt is shrinking.

If you cant cut off NPR – NPR for pete’s sake, then you can’t cut anything.

There are two options right now. Slowly going over the cliff, or speeding off it. Either way, it ends badly.

Good thing we’re armed.

rightside on February 5, 2014 at 12:53 AM

As a great man once said, remember me as I am — filled with murderous rage.

Interesting choice of words and eminently appropriate given the examples set by our founding fathers. How much longer before enough citizens have had their fill and set out to water the tree of liberty. Even the GOPe will not escape the wrath of we the people when that day comes.

AH_C on February 5, 2014 at 2:04 AM

So, when is corporate America going to fulfill its part of the bargain. They asked for a massive structural change in tax rates and got it during the Reagan years. And since the Reagan Administration capital gains and income tax rates have stayed within a pretty close range. Nothing compared to the tax rates of America’s “golden” World War II and postwar decades. But they haven’t kept up their end of the bargain. They have responded to getting the tax policy they wanted and disbanding 80% of the labor movement….by lowering wages and slashing employee benefits. It just seems like the last 40 years of tax policy is the proof on conservative philosophy about American standards of living and our level of intimacy with the federal state.
libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Really? As if the massive structure in tax rates were ever set in stone. It was the progressives that first implemented the income tax and then capital gains less than 100 years ago. We the people didn’t ask nor demand it. It was brought into being with a precursor to the class wars in that it would only affect the rich. All Reagan did was reel in the excesses of taxation even over the objection of the GOPe. Do you recall “voodoo economics”? The big companies were fine with high taxes and regulations as it kept down the competition. And don’t forget Carter started the ball rolling. Heck without those two massive structural changes you might still be carrying around a brick for a cell phone or have a phone mounted in your car. What about Dell or even Microsoft, would they even exist?

And since when does a corporation have an obligation to society beyond abiding by the laws set? Remember when the Google mantra was “do no evil”? How do you like their evolving into fascist bootlickers? Once I saw what they eere willing to do for China in exchange for access, I knew it was a matter of time. In fact it didn’t take long at all and only ghanks to Snowden do we even know what they’ve been doing to us for years now. Embrace the naive suck.

Stupid people like you are what incites the murderous rage AP referenced. Either that or a good beating with a clue bat.

AH_C on February 5, 2014 at 2:27 AM

As the old joke in the USSR went: we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.

Socialism makes everyone but the ruling elite poor.

Why work you can’t make any money at it?

Why be productive if you are going to get the same amount as the schlub kicking his heels back and doing nothing?

You can tax the rich down to absolute poverty and there will then be no capital to invest and after 8 months the money runs out.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system ever devised by mankind. Why? The idea is to sell goods and services as cheaply as possible and still make a buck on it, while being held accountable for what you provide by those using it. Money invested into thriving businesses increase the output and those employed at it, while decreasing the cost of the good or service. The basic accountability keeps products in line with what they are sold as, and then improvements mean a leg up on the competition.

The Left complained about Rockefeller being rich with Standard Oil, and Rockefeller himself wanted a near monopoly on the business and saw no good in competition. Mind you he destroyed the old whale oil monopoly with kerosene…so he actually got rid of one, which no one likes to mention. After Standard Oil was broken up and he had a large stake in all the pieces, competition took over to drive costs down and profits up: Rockefeller became richer than he EVER WOULD HAVE IF HE KEPT HIS MONOPOLY. The Progressives in seeking to destroy Rockefeller did JUST THE OPPOSITE. He had enough to give every child on the planet every year and did so. That was when a dime was worth something, too. No socialist system can EVER PERFORM SO WELL as the broken monopolist who then had a large stake in all the players in a competitive market. He lost control over the market and that made him rich beyond even the imagination of John D. Rockefeller, and that was no easy thing to do.

Whenever you hear an Elite saying that fewer productive jobs is a GOOD THING you are looking at the end of that society and the Elite will go with it, as well. The one saving grace with this current, modern lot is that they have screwed up doing socialism by gradualism so badly that they will have scorched all the paths to socialism to bedrock. This was the last path to socialism and utopia and it fails before our very eyes.

Even those who think they know what they are doing are clueless as to what actually happens when what they want actually comes to pass. Those who hate their fellow man and want to see rivers of blood and society in despair: they will love such times until they become one of the defenestrated.

Unfortunately we must survive such times as come with that. The end result of their outlook is a destruction of global trade which will cost billions of lives.

But that is all to the ‘greater good’ which they will never, ever, not once define and lay down as to what it actually is. EVER. Only Orwell could say it, because he had recoiled in horror from it.

ajacksonian on February 5, 2014 at 6:51 AM

100 years from now, if we still exist as a nation, the history books will point to this statement and note that this is when the people finally noticed the White House was run by absolute morons.

sadatoni on February 5, 2014 at 7:12 AM

That’s a joke right?

Not a joke, although I did say I was playing devil’s advocate. It is important to understand the other side’s arguments.

As automation takes over, the cost of produced goods should drop, rendering the standard of living the same at a lower income. It should also free up labor for new and improved goals.

With increasing automation the value of unskilled labor at the bottom could go to zero or even subzero, even for people of average intelligence. Managing it could become more costly in terms of supervisory labor than anything that could be done with such labor would be worth.

When you include the regulatory costs and the risks involved in terms of future regulations and legal costs, we may already be approaching that point, especially with the existence of the minimum wage (legal ‘zero’).

The assumption unskilled labor will always be able to generate enough value to supply the worker with the means to completely sustain themselves without some kind of assistance is questionable. Labor is not the only cost in consumables. Unskilled labor could approach zero without the costs of land and copper and oil and water going nearly so low.

If we had leadership.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:21 PM

There’s the rub. Leadership will always underperform our expectations.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 8:23 AM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

I love it. You actually admitted that the only problem with the USSR was that they didn’t administer it well enough. Today’s Marxists are soooo much smarter than yesteryear’s, so we will do a better job.

Never mind all the killing necessary to reach our utopia. You have to break a few eggs and all that.

The stripes on a fascist totalitarian never change. You people want power and control over everyone else’s lives “for the common good”. You and those who think like you are truly sick and demented.

History! That thing leftists never pay attention to or learn from. Why is it that every mass murdering totalitarian was a leftist you ask (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot and the list goes on and on)? Why, because they just weren’t as smart as today’s leftists. Today, we’ll do it all differently and it will work. Our 5 year plans will put the 5-year plans of the USSR to shame.

Monkeytoe on February 5, 2014 at 8:34 AM

100 years from now, if we still exist as a nation, the history books will point to this statement and note that this is when the people finally noticed the White House was run by absolute morons.
 
sadatoni on February 5, 2014 at 7:12 AM

 
I heard it said recently that 100 years ago they taught Latin in high school and today we teach remedial English in college.

rogerb on February 5, 2014 at 8:35 AM

With increasing automation the value of unskilled labor at the bottom could go to zero or even subzero, even for people of average intelligence. Managing it could become more costly in terms of supervisory labor than anything that could be done with such labor would be worth.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 8:23 AM

The labor isn’t “locked” into one particular industry, just as people are not “locked” into a particular “class” in America, despite what the Left believes.

If automation takes over a certain segment of an industry, the labor shifts over to something else, where there is a labor shortage. This is how a market economy has always worked for hundreds and hundreds of years.

You’re making the same argument that Obama made when he decried the rise of ATMs.

visions on February 5, 2014 at 8:44 AM

The debt of the U.S. government has increased $6.666 trillion since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the latest numbers released by the Treasury Department.

Bmore on February 5, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Oh, HT CNS, didn’t feel like making a tinyurl and HA still won’t allow linking to them.

Bmore on February 5, 2014 at 9:08 AM

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.

I’m sure this has been said already, but just in case…

Allah, you’re either being disingenuous or dense. It’s not hard to see why this report is good news: the ONLY reason many older Americans work is for healthcare coverage. The CBO is saying that because of the ACA, many of these people will not CHOOSE not to work, because they don’t have to.

It’s not saying ACA will kill those jobs, just that people will choose not to take them. And once that happens, employers can (gasp) hire other people for those jobs.

Also, too:

it discourages able-bodied people from working,

Are you against 401Ks? ‘Cause, you know, those encourage able-bodied people from not working too.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

The labor isn’t “locked” into one particular industry, just as people are not “locked” into a particular “class” in America, despite what the Left believes.

If automation takes over a certain segment of an industry, the labor shifts over to something else, where there is a labor shortage. This is how a market economy has always worked for hundreds and hundreds of years.

You’re making the same argument that Obama made when he decried the rise of ATMs.

visions on February 5, 2014 at 8:44 AM

That is the way it has always worked in the past, but in the past low skill labor wasn’t facing a universal change in the nature of labor. The microchip is changing everything.

Automation is taking over every low skill segment of every industry, and that process is accelerating.

We (humanity) haven’t faced anything like this before. It does not fit into the traditional libertarian game plan.

The progs are using this as an argument to grow government. We need a plan to counter them. If we ignore it, it will not just not go away. It will eventually drag everyone who is not ‘high skill’ out of the middle class, thereby leaving the progs triumphant.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM

so its been 24 hours, where is the spoof Facebook movie highlighting the Obama White House since 2009?

robertb on February 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

It is not good for an economy for people who can work to choose not to work. Whether they are over age 65 or not; retirement age is arbitrary. Of course they’d prefer not to work. I’d prefer not to work. But I do it so I can pay my bills. So do those people. And in the process of working to pay my bills, I produce a product or service tat is useful to someone else.

Does no one know how economics works anymore?

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 9:42 AM

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Some fatal flaws to your argument:

(1) ObamaCare is making healthcare more expensive for most people.
(2) ObamaCare is forcing many companies to reduce employee hours and cut their benefits forcing them on to the government exchanges (see point 1 again).
(3) Elderly who are working for health insurance? You mean people who qualify for Medicare?
(4) ObamaCare is pushing lots of people on to Medicaid though – which has been shown by multiple studies to have worse health outcomes than not having health insurance.

gwelf on February 5, 2014 at 9:42 AM

That is the way it has always worked in the past, but in the past low skill labor wasn’t facing a universal change in the nature of labor. The microchip is changing everything.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM

People said that the microchip would end recessions too–in the late 90s. We’e had two since then. Be very wary of anyone who says “the old rules no longer apply”. Nope, they still apply. No one is going to go to school to get an obsolete job. If some jobs go away, people will move toward other jobs, often service based.

Finally, only a tiny minority of people are getting anything close to “affordable” insurance out of the ACA. Said “affordability” is entirely based on subsidies from the government and not actual “cheap” insurance. Defund this law and the whole tower of cards collapses. And with fewer people working, there is less tax revenue, meaning less money to hand out in subsidies. Logic, it escapes liberals.

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 9:45 AM

People said that the microchip would end recessions too–in the late 90s. We’e had two since then.

Yes, some people said that, and I thought they were being ridiculous. What the microchip is doing to labor is an entirely different kind of thing than how it affects the economic cycle.

Be very wary of anyone who says “the old rules no longer apply”. Nope, they still apply.

Yes, be very wary. However, there are times when old rules obviously fail. Use your basic reason. If cheap machines can do any of the basic tasks a human can do, how can that not affect the value of low skilled and unskilled labor? We are adding an endless flood of supply of labor.

No one is going to go to school to get an obsolete job.

I am not arguing that the microchip is going to crush the value of high skill labor.

If some jobs go away, people will move toward other jobs, often service based.

Most service based jobs can be automated, too, eventually, and there are millions of people who do not do those kinds of jobs well.

Finally, only a tiny minority of people are getting anything close to “affordable” insurance out of the ACA. Said “affordability” is entirely based on subsidies from the government and not actual “cheap” insurance. Defund this law and the whole tower of cards collapses. And with fewer people working, there is less tax revenue, meaning less money to hand out in subsidies. Logic, it escapes liberals.

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 9:45 AM

I agree with this. However, the argument AP makes that it is a bad thing that people who were trapped in their jobs because of the glitch in our employer provided insurance system can now quit is a poor one.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 10:00 AM

However, the argument AP makes that it is a bad thing that people who were trapped in their jobs because of the glitch in our employer provided insurance system can now quit is a poor one.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 10:00 AM

It’s not a “glitch” in the system. It’s the system. We have employer-provided health insurance in this country for most people. Some people work bc they want money. Other people work bc they want health insurance. It’s all compensation. And people work bc they want compensation. It is a bad thing, objectively, for the government to give people that compensation without them having to make or do anything economically useful.

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 10:05 AM

I’m sure this has been said already, but just in case…

Allah, you’re either being disingenuous or dense. It’s not hard to see why this report is good news: the ONLY reason many older Americans work is for healthcare coverage. The CBO is saying that because of the ACA, many of these people will not CHOOSE not to work, because they don’t have to.

It’s not saying ACA will kill those jobs, just that people will choose not to take them. And once that happens, employers can (gasp) hire other people for those jobs.

2.5 million few people working means lower growth, which I’m sure you don’t care about, but also less tax revenues, which I imagine you do.

And as far that employers just hiring those positions, read the article. This is all about HOURS WORKED. So ObamaCare is also a disincentive to working harder to move ahead and working overtime. ObamaCare subsidies drop off quickly, meaning you’re better over making less and being more dependent on the government.

That is sick, wrong, and completely unsustainable given our imminent liberal entitlement collapse.

Are you against 401Ks? ‘Cause, you know, those encourage able-bodied people from not working too.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Chuck Schick on February 5, 2014 at 10:07 AM

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 10:00 AM

This is how a free economy works: individual people recognize what individual jobs make the most money, given their constraints, and gravitate towards those jobs. There is no such thing as a non-employable person. There never will be. And the paternalistic attitude that “some people will just never be able to get a paid job” is completely anti-conservative. Conservatives believe that people will care for themselves, their families and their communities without the government making them do so. And they do. This is the argument we need to be making.

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Are you against 401Ks? ‘Cause, you know, those encourage able-bodied people from not working too.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

You must have no idea what a 401K is. You have to have a job to have a 401K. It encourages individual savings to supplement social security, which is not enough to live on most anywhere in America. Many employers moved from pensions to 401ks and provide matching funds as a % of gross income.

This very much encourages work. If people choose to not work because they have enough in their 401k, they are likely in their 60′s. They are not being encouraged not to work at all other ages as ObamaCare does.

Chuck Schick on February 5, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Sorry, can’t help you. I was responding to the assertion in this and another post that jobs are being “lost” due to Obamacare, when in fact they are being voluntarily given up. If you’d like to divert the discussion to something else, perhaps you should find a “free rider” post.

Constantine on February 4, 2014 at 8:24 PM

I lost my job 3 weeks ago as a direct result of obaka-noncare. And my job was in the healthcare field.

ladyingray on February 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM

It’s not a “glitch” in the system. It’s the system. We have employer-provided health insurance in this country for most people. Some people work bc they want money. Other people work bc they want health insurance. It’s all compensation. And people work bc they want compensation. It is a bad thing, objectively, for the government to give people that compensation without them having to make or do anything economically useful.

alwaysfiredup on February 5, 2014 at 10:05 AM

When I was young and entered the work force to work for other people, I was astounded that employers were even allowed to provide things like health insurance and retirement benefits. They seemed to me to be clearly fraudulent in nature.

And this is an excellent example. We now have millions of people who got sick while they were under their employer provided health insurance. They now have a ‘pre-existing condition’ if they go to get health insurance from anyone else.

So if they get fired or quit, they are royally screwed. In some cases it can even kill them or at least force them into bankruptcy.

That is wrong. It’s sick.

Our failure to effectively address this problem and fix it is one of the reasons Obamacare managed to get forced on us. Every one of those trapped people, and most of their friends and families were vehement supporters of DO SOMETHING NOW.

So now we have AP and most of the commenters here arguing that it is a bad thing those people are no longer trapped.

It is an absurd argument, and it is badly counterproductive. Obamacare is horrible, but we attack the one good thing it did??

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM

the ONLY reason many older Americans work is for healthcare coverage.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Wow, Ship has been demoted to 5th string below Constantine? Must be all those trips to his winter villa in Tirana.

Actually, my dim friend, many “older” people work because they NEED to earn money just to stay alive.

Many others continue to work for a much simpler reason-they love their jobs. A colleague of mine actually worked in our profession until he was 95 years old, even though he had absolutely no reason for doing so.

Time for a conference?

Del Dolemonte on February 5, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I’m sure this has been said already, but just in case…

Allah, you’re either being disingenuous or dense. It’s not hard to see why this report is good news: the ONLY reason many older Americans work is for healthcare coverage. The CBO is saying that because of the ACA, many of these people will not CHOOSE not to work, because they don’t have to.

It’s not saying ACA will kill those jobs, just that people will choose not to take them. And once that happens, employers can (gasp) hire other people for those jobs.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Three weeks ago, I lost my job – in the healthcare field, btw – directly due to this crappy law that you love so much.

ladyingray on February 5, 2014 at 10:26 AM

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM

You and other liberals love to trot out the line that Americans love to work hard and that massive entitlement systems don’t sap any initiative at all.

What you don’t know – or admit to knowing – is that the entitlement state is structured in such a way that it heavily incentivises dependency not because people are lazy but because they’d have to be completely irrational. In most states “benefits” equal a middle class income and they drop of precipitously in large steps. I’ve seen the graphs. If you get a job or a slightly better job you’ll lose a lot more “benefits” than you’ll gain from working. You’d need a much much much better paying job in order to just make up the loss of “benefits”. The family of 3 getting full benefits gets about $60,000 per year in benefits. We have been living your supposed dream for a long time now and it’s not producing the results you claim you want.

gwelf on February 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Automation is taking over every low skill segment of every industry, and that process is accelerating.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 9:36 AM

C’mon dude…

visions on February 5, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I’m going to have to wander over to some Leftie sites to see if they are buying this garbage. Just because is sounds to stupid to be believe doesn’t mean it won’t be.

Cindy Munford on February 5, 2014 at 10:46 AM

And this is an excellent example. We now have millions of people who got sick while they were under their employer provided health insurance. They now have a ‘pre-existing condition’ if they go to get health insurance from anyone else.

So if they get fired or quit, they are royally screwed. In some cases it can even kill them or at least force them into bankruptcy.

That is wrong. It’s sick.

Our failure to effectively address this problem and fix it is one of the reasons Obamacare managed to get forced on us. Every one of those trapped people, and most of their friends and families were vehement supporters of DO SOMETHING NOW.

So now we have AP and most of the commenters here arguing that it is a bad thing those people are no longer trapped.

It is an absurd argument, and it is badly counterproductive. Obamacare is horrible, but we attack the one good thing it did??

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 10:20 AM

This has already been addressed upthread but you chose to ignore the responses.

The whole “bankruptcy” due to “pre-existing conditions” was massively overblown by the Left and their media enablers. Their stats have been debunked time and time again, here and other places. Justifying government takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy because of this very small percentage of people is pure insanity, as well as greedy and selfish. There are free-market solutions for those rare cases.

Further, there have been many laws here (and in other countries) that did “one good thing” but many, many, many bad things in the process. So, using your approach, any bad law could be defended, as long as it did “one good thing.”

visions on February 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM

This has already been addressed upthread but you chose to ignore the responses.

The whole “bankruptcy” due to “pre-existing conditions” was massively overblown by the Left and their media enablers. Their stats have been debunked time and time again, here and other places. Justifying government takeover of 1/6 of the U.S. economy because of this very small percentage of people is pure insanity, as well as greedy and selfish. There are free-market solutions for those rare cases.

Further, there have been many laws here (and in other countries) that did “one good thing” but many, many, many bad things in the process. So, using your approach, any bad law could be defended, as long as it did “one good thing.”

visions on February 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM

I didn’t address your previous response because you did in it the same thing you do here.

I am not arguing Obamacare is a good thing. It is an abomination. I have stated so several times in my arguments on this thread alone.

Just because there is something good in a thing does not mean it is a good thing. Stalin was a vital ally in the destruction of the Nazis. Saying that doesn’t mean you think Stalin was a swell guy.

The argument AP and you guys are making here is all wrong. Attacking a good aspect of a horrible thing is not the way to persuade anyone but those already convinced of the justness of your cause.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 11:04 AM

With increasing automation the value of unskilled labor at the bottom could go to zero or even subzero, even for people of average intelligence. Managing it could become more costly in terms of supervisory labor than anything that could be done with such labor would be worth.

When you include the regulatory costs and the risks involved in terms of future regulations and legal costs, we may already be approaching that point, especially with the existence of the minimum wage (legal ‘zero’).

The assumption unskilled labor will always be able to generate enough value to supply the worker with the means to completely sustain themselves without some kind of assistance is questionable. Labor is not the only cost in consumables. Unskilled labor could approach zero without the costs of land and copper and oil and water going nearly so low.

If we had leadership.

WryTrvllr on February 4, 2014 at 11:21 PM

There’s the rub. Leadership will always underperform our expectations.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 8:23 AM

“unskilled” manual labor, ie. building a retaining wall, right now commands $30.00 an hour give or take, depending on location.

If ALL the Mercedes dealerships are filled with cars, fully built, transported, finalized, and shown by automation, and no-one can afford to buy them, anywhere, what happens to Dahmler’s share price?

Multiply that by every industry and you see what happens.

True labor, someone actually willing to break their back and work up a sweat, will always have some value, because there will ALWAYS be jobs that need to be done. (Ask a farmer how much effort he puts into his fences and maintaining his fields). There will always be entrepreneurs willing to take those people, who are willing to work, and organize them into a business.

The pendulum can only swing so far. It’s true there’s a greater “wealth” gap now than ever before, but obesity and diabetes are the new diseases of poverty. Even the UN lists fewer people in the world as in poverty than EVER before. Should it ever return to a feudal poverty, it ends as revolution. Always did before.

If the Rothschilds owned EVERYTHING, all the means of production, and all the mines, and all the land, but there was no-one to buy their products or willing to take their money in return for some provided labor, would they be wealthy?

Sorry, meandering thoughts, but I work nights and just woke.

Lastly, and I hear this over and over, isn’t one of the biggest concerns amongst employers that so few potential employees are actually willing to show up on time and bust their @ss?

Labor will ALWAYS have value.

WryTrvllr on February 5, 2014 at 11:29 AM

Stuff like this just reminds me of a book series that I read by David Weber. In the series a constitutional republic became expansionist to support its welfare state, then destroyed the economies of its conquests. The cycle didn’t stop till someone was big enough to fight till a stalemate, only then did the people of the republic figure out that working was preferable to the welfare state. But the change had to come from the top. Political leaders interested in the betterment of people as individuals instead of appealing to the mob.

Heaven help us all if we allow our leaders to actually mandate a minimum income for all Americans.

Freed0m28 on February 5, 2014 at 11:38 AM

We have been living your supposed dream for a long time now and it’s not producing the results you claim you want.

gwelf on February 5, 2014 at 10:31 AM

Nor will it.

Among the massive problems with the progressive concept of economics is that they develop their ‘model’ entirely within a theoretical environment. In order to make it ‘work’, they need to ignore not only the real world conditions, but human nature as it exists within the real world. This is why their ‘model’ always works in theory, but has never worked in the real world.

Business columnist / journalist John Crudele, who has been reporting of the Obama Administration’s cooking of the BLS labor numbers in 2012 prior to the Presidential election, exposes in his latest column some of the canards so often tossed out by our resident trolls to justify Obamanomics.

With the NYSE showing a 30% gain in 2013, we’re being told that this is not only a robust economic recovery, but greedy corporations are making money hand over fist, yet are not hiring and actively working to drive wages down in order to maximize their profits and wealth of those at the top.

As with most lies, this has a small modicum of truth within. The trolls, as is their norm, will point to that truth as ‘verification’ of the veracity of the rest of it.

One would expect that if the NYSE gained 30% in one year, that corporations in the country saw substantial gains in revenues and profits to justify their higher stock prices. But as Crudele points out, using the S&P 500 as the sample, this wasn’t the case. What fueled the 30% stock market gain were 2 actions –

The market, in short, was propped up— by both the Federal Reserve (because it didn’t have any better idea for stimulating the economy) and professional traders (who had their own selfish motives).

2013 was not a boom year for revenues or profits for the member companies of the S&P 500.

For the companies comprising the S&P 500, the saw their revenues grow at a very weak 1.7%. Expectations prior to 2013 were for 3.4% revenue growth. So, 2013, witnessed revenues for S&P 500 companies being half of what was expected.

With very weak revenue growth, reflecting a very weak economy, significant pressure would be placed on these top companies for their profits or achieving the expected profit growth of 9.2% for 2013. (Hmm, an expedited profit growth of under 10% is ‘excessive’? Only in progressive economics, I guess)

However, in 2013, the profit numbers of the S&P 500 companies also failed to meet expectations. In 2013, the profits of these companies increased by only 6%. Furthermore, a deeper examination shows that the only reason that these companies were able to achieve 2/3rds of the expected profits were because nearly every company embarked on another round of expense reductions to lower their costs (and avoid as much as possible making their products and services more expensive).

With this subpar revenue and profit growth, a 30% increase in stock prices is hardly warranted or supported. This is why we’re seeing the start of a retrenchment / correction now as the Fed slows down their nearly $1T / year QE prop.

If you were a senior executive at one of these companies, and part of your compensation package is based on the profitability of your company, you are going to do all you can to reduce costs while maintaining productivity / revenues in order to maximize profitability. They are also stock owners – and derive compensation from their stock holdings / options. So they also want to maximize their stock prices.(Human nature)

One of the largest costs are labor costs. So hiring will be limited and carefully considered. If we don’t hire / increase productivity will we leave revenues on the table because we can’t fulfill customer needs? If we do hire, will revenues and productivity increase to offset by a desired %, the increase in costs? Are inflation, taxes, regulations, and raw material costs also increasing – which need to be offset by generating savings elsewhere?

Also in order to keep the stock prices up, they need to maximize their earnings.

As Crudele notes:

Yet they need to keep earnings as high as possible to justify the artificially high prices that Wall Street is assigning to their companies’ stock.

The only logical thing to do is keep costs down. And that means stifling hiring, among other expenses.

In equation form it goes something like this:

High Stock Prices + Corporate Exec Self-Interest in Keeping Price Up = Creation of Fewer Jobs.

Unfortunately, the reverse of that equations isn’t true: There won’t be more hiring just because stock prices are now coming down. In fact, those same corporate decision-makers are more likely to hire even fewer new workers if the stock market continues to misbehave.

The more government (in particular progressives) try to ‘fix’ the economy by rigging the free market in the name of ‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and ‘income equality’ in order to ‘build’ and ‘support’ the middle class, the more the government breaks the real world economy and damages the middle class.

As Winston Churchill said…

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Athos on February 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM

Are you against 401Ks? ‘Cause, you know, those encourage able-bodied people from not working too.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

A 401(k) plan is based on deferred compensation — that is, you agree to set aside a portion of the money you earn into a retirement plan. You cannot fund a 401(k) without having a job and earning money in the first place.

This demonstrates how unintelligent and shallow Barack Obama’s knowledge really is. Barack Obama and his puppets think words like “401(k)” are somehow magical, that simply including them in an argument makes it automatically better — when they don’t know the first thing about what they are or how they work.

But then again, what can we expect? Barack Obama’s base are the 47%-ers like Tom_Shipley who have never held a job in their lives and who think money magically appears, just like how Toots always had choom cash to give little Barry.

northdallasthirty on February 5, 2014 at 11:52 AM

It’s not saying ACA will kill those jobs, just that people will choose not to take them. And once that happens, employers can (gasp) hire other people for those jobs.

Tom_Shipley on February 5, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Sorry. I have no money to hire other people because my taxes were just hiked to cover the Obamacare subsidies for those people who just quit their jobs.

What you and your fellow Obooba imbeciles will never figure out is that paying people to do nothing drains the lifeblood out of an economy. You love it because people will jump at the chance to be paid the same amount for doing nothing and will vote for the politicians who promise it.

But then what happens when no one is working and everyone is demanding to be paid as if they were?

northdallasthirty on February 5, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Delusional. What are people supposed to do all day? Work is important for the well being of people’s emotions in addition to what it does for the economy. What is so disturbing is that this is being used politically rather than as a reason to revisit Obamacare and see what needs to be tweaked. We are done for as a nation. It’s just too bad that WE THE PEOPLE can’t recall Obama or congressional Democrats who placed this into law. We’re stuck waiting 6 years for the garbage to be taken out and cycled through. Of course, 2 years to clean House, 4 (maybe) for the WH and 6 for a Senator.

COgirl on February 5, 2014 at 12:01 PM

Let’s bomb Detroit. Then we’re set.

NoPain on February 4, 2014 at 11:14 PM

See if you can hit Dearborn (sp?) with a couple strays while you’re at it…

affenhauer on February 5, 2014 at 12:14 PM

The obduracy of the President and his administration, they are like a brick wall.

Fleuries on February 5, 2014 at 12:51 PM

The argument AP and you guys are making here is all wrong. Attacking a good aspect of a horrible thing is not the way to persuade anyone but those already convinced of the justness of your cause.

fadetogray on February 5, 2014 at 11:04 AM

My cause? I thought we were on the same team?

Anyway, we’re talking over each other. What I’ve been trying to say, among other things, is that this “one good thing” in ObamaCare is not that good at all:

-It’s based on false information and data, regurgitated by media enablers
-”Pre-existing conditions” and insurance is best solved through free market solutions, not ObamaCare

So, this “one good thing” about ObamaCare is indeed open to attack because there are better solutions available, right now, without all of the waste, fraud, abuse, disruptions, class warfare, etc.

visions on February 5, 2014 at 1:35 PM

When you think about it 2.5 Million more people are on the Dole because of Obamacare…suck it up payers!

rgranger on February 5, 2014 at 2:02 PM

The next Steve Jobs shouldn’t be trapped in his corporate job because he requires health insurance.

bayam on February 4, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Steve Jobs created zillions of jobs and a worldwide communications revolution. He put into the hands of low-income people devices which couldn’t have even been imagined by the richest of people even a handful of years before.

According to this WH, it would have been much better if he had instead just dropped out of the rat race decided to be a ski bum in his 20s and “pursue his passion” of being on the slopes 24/7. Because why work if you don’t have to?

Missy on February 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM

I keep waiting for all this statist stupidity to reach critical mass. The United States I remember would have ended it years ago.

Sad to say, the Tapeworm Class just keeps re-upping for more.

Demonized on February 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM

You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

“Slightly more” arsenic in one’s food is not an appealing prospect. Your lust for political control over the lives of others is showing, Slavenowandie. Considering the intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance of your -own- field that you display here every day, why should you and yours be entrusted with running a lemonade stand, let alone the world’s largest economy?

ebrown2 on February 5, 2014 at 5:47 PM

You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

You can package socialism in many different ways, but you can’t change the economics.

The problem is the economics – not the packaging.

blink on February 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM

The problem is that the the most petty and unheroic of the Seven Deadly Sins, Envy, has been raised to the chief political and social virtue by piggish purveyors of ignorance like Slavenowandie and his ilk.

ebrown2 on February 5, 2014 at 5:48 PM

Really dude? You don’t think that there aren’t fundamental differences between the way we would administer a slightly more socialistic state and the way it was done in early 20th century Russia? Really?

libfreeordie on February 4, 2014 at 5:16 PM

A “slightly more socialistic state” is like being a “little bit pregnant”. The Government either controls the means of production and distribution of goods and services (and the aggregate national wealth/GDP), or it does not.

What you aim for, is Federal Government controlled wealth redistribution, and delivery of services.
Currently, as with it’s EVERY other iteration, this system of government DOES NOT WORK. (it’s especially destructive to that “Middle Class” that you so proudly wave like a flag, but still cannot define.)

No matter how many different ways you try to eat it, Socialism is the same shit sandwich.

You, are the embodiment of the definition of insanity; repeating the same action endlessly and expecting a different result.

Crazy’s not illegal yet…Free Country and all…but do it in your own home.

…p.s. I still hate you.

a5minmajor on February 5, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5