Obamacare
Quote: ams288Try providing actual data. Lol
Why do you even care anyway? You said yourself that you're ignorant. lol
Quote: ams288
Try providing actual data. Lol
Labor force participation rate:
Food Stamps:
Long term unemployed:
You wanted data? There is your data. As I said, We have enough people under Obama refusing to work already.
EDIT: Note on the last graph how the long term unemployment problem falls almost as soon as we pay people to take a 99 week vacation!
Quote: AZDuffmanLabor force participation rate:
Food Stamps:
Long term unemployed:
You wanted data? There is your data. As I said, We have enough people under Obama refusing to work already.
In no way does that show people "refusing" to work. Sorry.
Quote: Beethoven9thWhy do you even care anyway? You said yourself that you're ignorant. lol
You're the ignorant one here. I said I'm ignorant on the Benghazi nonsense, not ignorant on every issue known to man. You're just being a smartass.
Quote: ams288
In no way does that show people "refusing" to work. Sorry.
Being out of the labor force is refusing to work. Sorry.
Quote: Washington lame-stream paperThe CBO report found that Obamacare — through subsidizing health coverage – would reduce the amount of hours workers choose to work, to the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers over 10 years. This was widely spun by Republicans as a loss of 2.5 million jobs."
"To counter this, Van Hollen cited the report’s findings on Obamacare’s impact on labor demand, rather than supply. On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will “boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services.” This, the report says, “will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years.”
“When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?” Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.
“Yes, that’s right,” Elmendorf said.
Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks “spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years.”
So there it is: The CBO report found the opposite of what some foes of the law claimed."
Or we could go to the report itself. Read Appendix "C"
Quote: CBO"The ACA’s largest impact on labor markets will probably occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full effect and overall economic output nears its maximum sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy wil be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017–2024 period"
"The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). CBO’s estimate that the ACA will reduce employment reflects some of the inherent trade-offs involved in designing such legislation. Subsidies that help lower income people purchase an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with rising income in order to limit their total costs, the phaseout effectively raises people’s marginal tax rates (the tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus discouraging work."
Quote: AZDuffmanBeing out of the labor force is refusing to work. Sorry.
It's sad you think that.
Everyone who's out if the labor force is REFUSING to work. Yeesh.
Quote: AZDuffmanBeing out of the labor force is refusing to work. Sorry.
Most of the decrease in labor participation rate is due to retirement of baby boomers not some 20 year old refusing to work. I mean do you expect people to keep working till they drop dead on the shop room floor? Another cause is a rise in the number of people attending university. These people aren't just saying work is hard they are doing something to better themselves and potentially earn more in the future.
You're all correct!!!
Quote: CBOOf the roughly 3 percentage-point net decline in the labor force participation rate between the end of 2007 and the end of 2013, about 1½ percentage points was the result of long-term trends (primarily the aging of the population), about 1 percentage point was the result of temporary weakness in employment prospects and wages, and about one-half of a percentage point was attributable to unusual aspects of the slow recovery that led workers to become discouraged and permanently drop out of the labor force.
If you want some ammunition against Obama, read the full thing. Lots of things to be discouraged about there!
Quote: ams288It's sad you think that.
Everyone who's out if the labor force is REFUSING to work. Yeesh.
Everyone? No. But those on 99 weeks of unemployment and finding new ways to be on disability? Yes, they are refusing to work.
Quote: TwirdmanMost of the decrease in labor participation rate is due to retirement of baby boomers not some 20 year old refusing to work. I mean do you expect people to keep working till they drop dead on the shop room floor? Another cause is a rise in the number of people attending university. These people aren't just saying work is hard they are doing something to better themselves and potentially earn more in the future.
Please cite some facts for this because I would think they take that into account same as they seasonally adjust numbers. And I do not buy the "attending university" thing, when I was in college I still worked. Most people have to work in college.
says the guy who has no facts for anything he says, without a shred of self-awareness.Quote: AZDuffmanPlease cite some facts for this...
Quote: s2dbakersays the guy who has no facts for anything he says, without a shred of self-awareness.
I guess you didn't read the post I made above?
Quote: AZDuffmanEveryone? No. But those on 99 weeks of unemployment and finding new ways to be on disability? Yes, they are refusing to work.
Seems to me like that'd be a small minority of people who are out of the labor force. Certainly not anywhere near "everyone."
But you don't have any data to back this up. So we will never know.
So you can just keep (incorrectly) saying we have too many people out of the labor force who are REFUSING to work, because that fits your beliefs.
Quote: ams288Quote: anonimussQuote: ams288Quote: AZDuffmanYes, it is a bad thing when 2 million more people decide not to work. We have enough people under Obama refusing to work already. The cart has too many people riding in it already, this is 2 million more no longer pulling it and getting in and riding.
Any data backing this up? And remember, the plural of anecdote isn't data.
Try food stamp recipients. Try 99 weeks of unemployment compensation. Try the real unemployment numbers, not the obama cooked book numbers. Try opening your eyes.
Try providing actual data. Lol
Try reading the CBO report. Try thinking. LOL
Quote: ams288
So you can just keep (incorrectly) saying we have too many people out of the labor force who are REFUSING to work, because that fits your beliefs.
No, I am saying it because if you do not take a job after being out of work for 6 months let alone 99 weeks you are REFUSING TO WORK. And if you drop out of the labor force you are REFUSING TO WORK. If you stay on welfare instead of taking even a minimum wage job you are REFUSING TO WORK.
Myself and probably half the people I know both work a job and have at least one side hustle. So we have 2+ jobs and these people won't even take 1? Seriously.
Quote: boymimboActually another CBO report talks about why the labor participation rate has gone down:
You're all correct!!!
If you want some ammunition against Obama, read the full thing. Lots of things to be discouraged about there!
This is true and I should have been more tempered with the statement I made against AZ. I was quick to point out his hasty generalization and because of that I made a hasty generalization of myself somewhat implying that all the affect was caused by an aging population which is clearly untrue. I should have been more careful since I'm normally one of the first to point out we need to look at the entire picture.
pound gorilla in the room. Obamacare will never
in a thousand years get enough young people
signed up to pay for all the older sick people.
Never. So it's doomed from the start.
The reason the current system works is because
most young people are covered and their premiums
are paid by their employers. Or their parents, or
a spouse that has a job and the employers pays
on the spouse.
When the employers start cutting these young people
loose, they aren't going to seek healthcare, they
don't need it. They aren't signing up now. It all
comes down to this, the rest of your arguments are
a waste of time. Doomed to failure and doomed to
huge gov't bailouts that will bankrupt the country.
The U.S. Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 6.7 percent in December—but does that rate tell the real story?
A number of economists look past the "main" unemployment rate to a different figure the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls "U-6," which it defines as "total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers."
In other words, the unemployed, the underemployed and the discouraged — a rate that still remains high.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101326426
http://www.macrotrends.net/1365/jobless-claims-historical-chart
Graph of U-6 with longer time scale for context
1) Steady dropping from 1994-2001
2) Spike up in late 2001
3) Stabilization until 2004
4) Slight dropping until 2007
5) Slight uptick during 2007
6) Spike up during 2008-2010
7) Steady dropping from 2010 to present
Quote: anonimussLook! Finally something obama's good at! σs
http://www.macrotrends.net/1365/jobless-claims-historical-chart
Seems like this chart shows a steady decline during his presidency.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, I am saying it because if you do not take a job after being out of work for 6 months let alone 99 weeks you are REFUSING TO WORK.
You live in some alternate fantasy world where every unemployed person has the option to "take a job."
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd if you drop out of the labor force you are REFUSING TO WORK.
Uh no. You even admitted above that not everyone who drops out is REFUSING to work.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf you stay on welfare instead of taking even a minimum wage job you are REFUSING TO WORK.
I think you (and most republicans in general) over-exaggerate how many people this actually is. But I don't know. Have any data backing this claim up? Probably not. Lol
Quote: AZDuffmanMyself and probably half the people I know both work a job and have at least one side hustle. So we have 2+ jobs and these people won't even take 1? Seriously.
I'm pretty sure "these people" only exist mostly in your nightmares.
Quote: ams288You live in some alternate fantasy world where every unemployed person has the option to "take a job."
Uh no. You even admitted above that not everyone who drops out is REFUSING to work.
I think you (and most republicans in general) over-exaggerate how many people this actually is. But I don't know. Have any data backing this claim up? Probably not. Lol
I'm pretty sure "these people" only exist mostly in your nightmares.
Actually working people tend to be Republicans so they would exist in your nightmares.
Quote: anonimussHistoric highs all through his presidency. See facts, not what you want to see.
You know this data is autocorrelated right?
He was inaugurated Tuesday, January 20, 2009. Set that as the start date, during his presidency there has been a substantial decline. You might think the decline has not been fast enough, but it seem to be in line with other fluctuations.
Quote: anonimussWait until the effects of obamacare hit this. Real unemployment (not cooked obama numbers) just under 13%, The new norm for liberals.
Why does U6 magically become the real number under Obama. We have always used U3 as the tool of comparison. Here is a chart of the trends http://www.macrotrends.net/1377/u6-unemployment-rate going back to 94 and you see that whenever U3 goes down U6 goes down almost in direct proportion. Same with increases.
Quote: anonimussYou know it's historic highs, right?
That is just wrong. Couldn't find U6 rates during the early 80s but given U3 numbers were near 12 I seriously doubt that U6 wasn't significantly higher then now. That is not comparing to the actual historic levels seen during the depression. So again if you want to discuss how the unemployment rate is high we can do that but stop with the hyperbolic crap.
This hasn't happened, and five plus years into his presidency, Obama is to blame for the lack of progress in the economy, and no one else.
The fact is that 1/6 of the drop in those looking for work are from those discouraged, with 1/2 of the amount due to aging and the rest being due to a skills mismatch. It isn't "most" but it is still a factor.
The CBO notes that the recovery has been extremely sluggish. It's a recovery, but it's sluggish.
You picked data sources which undercut your position, sorry.
Quote: anonimussYou know it's historic highs, right?
The unemployment rate hit historic high brought to you by Dubya. U-6 and U-3 plateaued in the the summer of 2009 and it's been going down since April of 2010.
Quote: anonimussRecord numbers on food stamps. Record numbers on unemployment. Incentive to work being destroyed. The U.S. a laughingstock in the world. And, 5 years later, according to libs, "It's George Bushes fault!" Any "recovery" is due to the resiliency of Americans and despite obama, not due to obama.
Unless the president is a Republican, then the "recovery" is due to the president. By your logic, any "setback" is due to the laziness of liberals and is the president's fault.
What does that even mean?Quote: anonimussOver/Under on the next United States credit downgrade? If they set the number at June 1, 2014 I'm going under.
Quote: boymimboWhile I agree that Obama got handed a lousy economy to begin his presidency as well as a Congress who has been remarkably uncooperative, his mantra in 2008 was "Change".
?????? His party has controlled the Senate since he got here, with a Supermajority for a good part of the time. His party controlled the House for 2 years. I guess "uncooperative" to you means not just doing everything he says to do?
A leader works the phones, and calls in the opposition and sees what they can work on. A leader gives the other side something to go along with what you want to get done. A leader finds a few people on the other side that can be worked with.
Obama did none of this. Obama told the GOP to "go sit in back of the bus while I drive!" Is it any wonder the GOP has been as you say, "uncooperative?" Obama said he didn't want their help so they have not given it to him.
(BTW: If a GOP-POTUS said those words the cries of "racism" would be deafening.)
Quote:The CBO notes that the recovery has been extremely sluggish. It's a recovery, but it's sluggish.
It is a "recovery" in that anything that is not a decline in GDP is termed a "recovery." A big part of the problem is Obama thinks he is supposed to "direct" the recovery. The job of POTUS is to be out of the way. He wants to pick and choose. Look at energy. He wants so-called alternative energy to lead the way. Where is the boom? Fracking gas and oil. He should have approved Keystone XL years ago which would mean good construction jobs and refining jobs thereafter, even possibly more exports. Instead he keeps his habit of "voting present" so he does not get tagged with the decision.
Quote: s2dbakerWhat does that even mean?
It means he thinks the bond ratings agencies will downgrade their ratings on riskiness of debt issued by the US Treasury *again* before June 14, 2014.
That what it says but what does it mean? What does that have to do with Obamacare or anything in the previous 10 posts? I'm all for off-topic asides but I like to know what they have to do with the current topic in general. Why would a bond rating company downgrade the debt? The bills will be paid. The Republicans have already indicated that they will cave on the debt ceiling. I'll take the "Over".Quote: AZDuffmanIt means he thinks the bond ratings agencies will downgrade their ratings on riskiness of debt issued by the US Treasury *again* before June 14, 2014.
Quote: s2dbakerThat what it says but what does it mean? What does that have to do with Obamacare or anything in the previous 10 posts? I'm all for off-topic asides but I like to know what they have to do with the current topic in general. Why would a bond rating company downgrade the debt? The bills will be paid. The Republicans have already indicated that they will cave on the debt ceiling. I'll take the "Over".
What I would guess (I didn't make the post) it has to do with Obamacare it Obamacare is a massive liability to the US Treasury.
Why would a bond rating company downgrade the debt? Because massive new debt will be harder and harder to service, which means risk of default will rise.
My belief is there will never be a "default" in that bondholders will not be paid. What will happen is the government will inflate the debt away, so the $1,000 bond you buy today will have less real buying power in the future. Case in point is the $1,000 bond bought in 1913 had the buying power of $20,000 today but the holder gets the same $1,000 back at maturity. (NOTE: I know the Treasury does not issue bonds > 30 years and that the purchaser in 1913 is long since dead. The example is for illustrative purposes.)
Quote: AZDuffman?????? His party has controlled the Senate since he got here, with a Supermajority for a good part of the time. His party controlled the House for 2 years. I guess "uncooperative" to you means not just doing everything he says to do?
Obama never had a supermajority. He was elected with 58. Franken didn't get certified until July 2009. Specter switched in April, giving him 59. Byrd was hospitalized in May 2009 -- back to 58. Then Franken was certified - 59. Then Kennedy died - 58. Kirk filled in - 59. Kennedy lost in 2010 - 58. There was never a supermajority. Nice try.
Quote: FoxNewsIt is a "recovery" in that anything that is not a decline in GDP is termed a "recovery." A big part of the problem is Obama thinks he is supposed to "direct" the recovery. The job of POTUS is to be out of the way. He wants to pick and choose. Look at energy. He wants so-called alternative energy to lead the way. Where is the boom? Fracking gas and oil. He should have approved Keystone XL years ago which would mean good construction jobs and refining jobs thereafter, even possibly more exports. Instead he keeps his habit of "voting present" so he does not get tagged with the decision.
Did I say anything that was not factual? Did I say anything that was flattering to Obama? Read the CBO article. It's the CBO that shows it being a "recovery" in all measures of employment.
Stay delusional.
Quote: boymimboObama never had a supermajority. He was elected with 58. Franken didn't get certified until July 2009. Specter switched in April, giving him 59. Byrd was hospitalized in May 2009 -- back to 58. Then Franken was certified - 59. Then Kennedy died - 58. Kirk filled in - 59. Kennedy lost in 2010 - 58. There was never a supermajority. Nice try.
When Specter switched he got the 60 votes he needed which was when Obamacare made cloture. He had a super-majority.
A few months, some of that time congress was out of session. The truth is almost always between the two extreme view points
Edit: fixed link
Quote: endermikehttp://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/
A few months, some of that time congress was out of session. The truth is almost always between the two extreme view points
Edit: fixed link
The really important part is if you have even 58 votes in the Senate and House control no reasonable person can consider it a "hostile congress."
Even when you have a filibusterproof majority you often need to work with the other side. An example would be when LBJ got the GOP to help break the Democrat-led filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe really important part is if you have even 58 votes in the Senate and House control no reasonable person can consider it a "hostile congress."
Even when you have a filibusterproof majority you often need to work with the other side. An example would be when LBJ got the GOP to help break the Democrat-led filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
You do need to try, but ultimately there can exist a "hostile minority" which may be unwilling to work with someone. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not, only time will tell.
Quote: endermikeYou do need to try, but ultimately there can exist a "hostile minority" which may be unwilling to work with someone. Sometimes that is a good thing, sometimes not, only time will tell.
I realize and accept this. But my point is that Congress is part of the Constitutional syetem of checks and balances that any POTUS must deal with. People act as though Obama is the first POTUS to not have Congress totally in his pocket to approve his entire agenda.
FWIW I told people before he was elected that he would be unable to work with any oposition at all. In Illinois and then in the Senate he never had to work with the other side. He simply never learned how to do it. When he has to do it he thinks all he needs to do is make a speech and the other side will do what he wants.
Anyone who has ever been in management knows this. I remember my first days as a manager. You think you say "jump" and the people jump. But it does not work that way. You have to follow-up to make sure orders are followed. And on big things you need to get buy-in so not only do people do but they believe.
A huge problem is Obama never stopped campaigning. He never wanted to start governing, which is far harder. But when you keep on beating on the other party day in and day out they will not work with you because they decide no matter what they do you are going to beat on them.
