Democrat's Bold Defense of ObamaCare Job-Killer: Nobody Really Wants a Job Promotion

[Mach1]

We can be like steeldawg and have time to chase our dreams.

Democrat's Bold Defense of ObamaCare Job-Killer: Nobody Really Wants a Job Promotion, Anyway...

http://content.jwplatform.com/previe...qv8EZ-OwlNfjNX


“You have to laugh to keep from crying,” she says. Congresswoman, that’s where our agreements begin and end. Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin gives a baffling explanation of how the CBO Report translates to good news.

Well, perhaps not so baffling given the country’s dire economic situation. MSNBC reporter Craign Melvin asks Moore about how lawmakers have said that Obamacare will be a disincentive to work hard. She gives a facepalm-worthy answer:

I mean, come on. Knock it off. I mean, you can say that people don’t want a promotion because if they make more money, they’ll have to pay more taxes.

Actually, no, Congresswoman, you can’t say that. Being placed into a higher tax bracket because you earn more money will not actually cause you to lose money. You’ll still have more money than you did before – well, unless you have to pay more for ObamaCare.

Overlooking that Moore’s number of 10 million covered by ObamaCare was scratched out on a cocktail napkin before the show (no, Medicaid doesn’t count), the Democrats have ceased fighting the reality that ObamaCare will kill jobs. They are actually touting the law as another massive welfare program, which offers Americans the chance to get ahead – at others’ expense.

Forget job promotions, forget hard work. With Democrats, it’s no longer unemployment, it’s funemployment. The party is confirming every accusation made against it for years: that the Democrats are buying votes with the hard-earned money of taxpayers. It is subsidizing idleness, and lowering productivity – which hurts the economy, and in the long-run, poor people.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/1134...se-cbo-report/

[Dwinsgames]

[Mach1]

[BnG_Hevn]

The only way I can fathom not wanting a raise in pay is if I was $1000 from the next tax bracket and I get a $1500 raise AND that next tax bracket adding enough of a % in tax increase to lower my "net" income.

But even then, I'd still take it because you'd have to get through that "gray area" at some point, unless you can say "No, don't give me a raise until it is substantial enough to offset the tax increase".

[Mach1]

The only way I can fathom not wanting a raise in pay is if I was $1000 from the next tax bracket and I get a $1500 raise AND that next tax bracket adding enough of a % in tax increase to lower my "net" income.

But even then, I'd still take it because you'd have to get through that "gray area" at some point, unless you can say "No, don't give me a raise until it is substantial enough to offset the tax increase".

If your making minimum you might be one of the lucky ones that gets to keep their job.

[Godfather]

The only way I can fathom not wanting a raise in pay is if I was $1000 from the next tax bracket and I get a $1500 raise AND that next tax bracket adding enough of a % in tax increase to lower my "net" income.

But even then, I'd still take it because you'd have to get through that "gray area" at some point, unless you can say "No, don't give me a raise until it is substantial enough to offset the tax increase".

That can't happen with tax brackets because the rates are marginal.

A pay raise could trigger the AMT under the right circumstances and that would be a net loss. It can also push you over a welfare cliff at lower income levels.

[steeldawg]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

[fansince'76]

Wow. Just wow...

[Mach1]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

Do you believe everything thats feed to you by the hopey lapdog media?

[BnG_Hevn]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

If I were working a 40 hour work week and my employer said I now get 3 days off a week, but my pay stays the same, first thing I'd do, ESPECIALLY if I were making $8 - $15 an hour, is go out and find a job to work those extra days so I have more money.

Now, if I'm making enough to where I have a ton of cash left over after bills and don't "need" additional money, THEN I would relax.

I'd wager any single mother working her arse off to make ends meet, if she had "time off", I'd wager she'd look for more work.

[Wallace108]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

Wait, I thought it was the government's responsibility to raise our children.

OK, I'll ask the obvious question ... if someone is working a full-time job making $11-$12 an hour and is working basically for health care, how can he or she possibly be in a financial position to stop working or work fewer hours? I know plenty of people, myself included, who have been afraid to leave a job because of losing health care insurance. There are countless people working jobs they don't particularly like, but they're more or less "trapped" because the company pays for their health care. For these people, it's a matter of being able to do a job they enjoy ... it's not a matter of working fewer hours or not at all. If you want to be in a position to work fewer hours or not at all, then you have to work hard to put yourself in the financial position to do so. If you're working a full-time job making $11-$12 an hour, then I highly doubt you're in a financial position to reduce your work hours, regardless of whether you have health care.

When my kids were 10 and 5, my work hours switched from morning to afternoon. I went from getting home at 2:30 in the afternoon to leaving for work at 2:30 in the afternoon. Other than the summer months, I got to see my kids only two days a week (my off days), and it greatly reduced the amount of time I had to spend with my wife, who works mornings. I can't express enough how much it sucked. I got up in the late morning and everyone was at work or school. I came from work and everyone was in bed. I thought a lot about getting a new job, even though I liked my job except for the hours. I had other opportunities, but I couldn't find anything at the time that offered the same pay and benefits. I was "trapped" by health care. After about a year of feeling sorry for myself, I became dedicated to learning some new skills and made myself valuable in other areas. As a result, I eventually picked up a few highly coveted day shifts. It wasn't handed to me ... I had to bust my ass for it. Now I work only two to three nights a week. It's not perfect, but it's better than working five nights a week like I did for a few years.

What's the point? Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes life kicks you in the nuts. But working is a part of being a responsible adult. And sometimes you have to work at jobs you don't like. Sometimes you have to work hours you don't like or for less pay than you think you deserve. If you're not happy with your job, hours, pay, or benefits, then it's up to you to change it. You're in the position you're in because of you and no one else. Figure out what you're doing wrong and learn how to improve yourself. Work harder and make yourself more valuable ... the more valuable you are, the more you're worth. Educate yourself and work to learn new skills. Learn to network ... in the age of social media, networking has never been easier.

I would LOVE to be in a financial position where I could retire early and spend more time with my family and do things I enjoy but don't have time for because of work. But I didn't put myself in that position, and I have to continue to work. So no, it's not right that I have to continue to bust my ass at work and help pay for other people's health care so that they can reduce their work hours, or stop working, so they can spend more time with their children.

While it's okay to ask for and receive some help, you should never expect anyone else, including the government, to take care of you and your family. That's your responsibility.

[X-Terminator]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

You've got to be kidding me? So I'm busting my hump for 40 hours a week working odd hours AND weekends so that someone else can work less so they can spend time with their kids?

I honestly don't know what else to say to that statement. At least, not without resorting to using a lot of F-bombs and every possible variation of it.

[steeldawg]

Did anyone even read the topic of the thread!!!???? The whole point of this article is to try and make fun of democrats for their defense against obamacare killing jobs. My quote is aimed directly at that. The explanation is completely logical, obamacare is not killing the jobs people will elect to work less, the jobs themselves are still there. All this crap you guys are posting is ridiculous, its not a stretch that a mother in that situation could leave that situation if she is working just for healthcare, maybe her husband works but doesn't get healthcare through his job or maybe where she worked had a better plan, but now through the exchange she can get a similar plan coverage wise for a similar price without having to go through an employer. Not everyone is trying to mooch off you, people just have different situations and now they some different options. This one is directed at Wallace108, I do not receive any government assistance so you can save your lecture on hard work for somebody else. Also a mothers job is to do whatever is best for family by any means and if that means spending more time at home to benefit her children then she should do that. If her children need her at home and she can take a government subsidy to make sure they get what they need I don't know a mother who wouldn't do that. Trust me the people who need help in this country far outweigh the number of people who work the system.

[smokin3000gt]

Its really not that hard to fathom, if your a person working a full time job with children at home and your making like 11-12 dollars an hour just basically working for healthcare for you and your children, you may choose to work less and spend more time raising your children now that obamacare subsidizes more of your health cost. This is an effect on low wage workers who are right on the edge and it a choice by the worker to work less, its not the employer cutting hours.

Or they may choose to not work at all and have obama subsidize everything. Then they get to spend all the time in the world with their kids. Raising them to be real winners, I'm sure. Isn't America grand??

[steeldawg]

Or they may choose to not work at all and have obama subsidize everything. Then they get to spend all the time in the world with their kids. Raising them to be real winners, I'm sure. Isn't America grand??

They could but, but does that mean obamacare killed that job? The job is still there is it not? Just the person who was doing it left.

[steeldawg]

Or they may choose to not work at all and have obama subsidize everything. Then they get to spend all the time in the world with their kids. Raising them to be real winners, I'm sure. Isn't America grand??

Yes its also clear that anyone raised by a mother who used a government healthcare subsidies is doomed to be failure in life.

[smokin3000gt]

Yes its also clear that anyone raised by a mother who used a government healthcare subsidies is doomed to be failure in life.

No, but those mothers who opt for subsidies and living off the government because of laziness instead of need will most likely raise her child to be the same kind of bum/drain on society she is. There are good people that legitimately need help, unfortunately those people are usually the ones that don't get it.

[steeldawg]

No, but those mothers who opt for subsidies and living off the government because of laziness instead of need will most likely raise her child to be the same kind of bum/drain on society she is. There are good people that legitimately need help, unfortunately those people are usually the ones that don't get it.

Why maybe the option for a subsidy provides a better option for her and her family it may have nothing to do with being lazy, as a mother it is her job to care for her family the best she can by any means.

[smokin3000gt]

No, but those mothers who opt for subsidies and living off the government because of laziness instead of need will most likely raise her child to be the same kind of bum/drain on society she is. There are good people that legitimately need help, unfortunately those people are usually the ones that don't get it.

Why maybe the option for a subsidy provides a better option for her and her family it may have nothing to do with being lazy, as a mother it is her job to care for her family the best she can by any means.

I'm talking about people who ABUSE the systems in place and you know it. You just like to nit pick and argue every point to the fucking death. I've never seen someone who likes to see/hear themselves talk as much as you do. Why not go back to HuffPo?

[Wallace108]

Did anyone even read the topic of the thread!!!???? The whole point of this article is to try and make fun of democrats for their defense against obamacare killing jobs. My quote is aimed directly at that. The explanation is completely logical, obamacare is not killing the jobs people will elect to work less, the jobs themselves are still there.

Did you read our responses? No one is talking about Obamacare killing jobs. We're talking about Obamacare being a disincentive to work.

Not everyone is trying to mooch off you

So where, exactly, is the money from the subsidies coming from?

This one is directed at Wallace108, I do not receive any government assistance so you can save your lecture on hard work for somebody else.

My comments were not directed at you specifically ... I was using "you" in the general sense. I apologize for not being more clear. However, you taking offense to what I said doesn't make it any less true. Far too many people think they're owed a good-paying job. And if they don't have a good-paying job, it's everyone's fault but their own. Too many people sit around feeling sorry for themselves and blaming others instead of figuring out how to improve themselves. And that's for the people who want to work. But let's be honest ... there's a LOT of people out there looking for any excuse to not have to work.

If her children need her at home and she can take a government subsidy to make sure they get what they need I don't know a mother who wouldn't do that.

Really? I'm good friends with a few single mothers who work multiple jobs and don't get or want government assistance. One of them received assistance for a short time but got off it as quickly as she could because she was embarrassed about it. That's one of the problems ... we're taking the embarrassment out of receiving government assistance and trying to make it acceptable. It sounds kind of cruel, but the embarrassment of receiving government assistance can be a strong motivator to work hard to get off of it.

It's one thing to use government assistance as a safety net. It's another thing to use it as a hammock. It all comes down to personal responsibility. As I said in my earlier post ... there's nothing wrong with needing and receiving some help. But you (in the general sense) should not expect other people, many who are struggling themselves, to take care of you and your family (again, "you" in the general sense).

[Count Steeler]

Government money should not be separated from it's origin.

Government has become an "acceptable" source to ease the guilt of the entitlement class. Government money is my money and your money, it is not garnered from productive revenue activities. It is taxation on YOUR productive revenue activities.

I have no problem with short term aid for fellow citizens, to help them get back on their feet. Systemic, chronic entitlements have to be abolished.

Let the churches and other non profit organizations be responsible for helping in their own communities.

[steeldawg]

Did you read our responses? No one is talking about Obamacare killing jobs. We're talking about Obamacare being a disincentive to work.


So where, exactly, is the money from the subsidies coming from?


My comments were not directed at you specifically ... I was using "you" in the general sense. I apologize for not being more clear. However, you taking offense to what I said doesn't make it any less true. Far too many people think they're owed a good-paying job. And if they don't have a good-paying job, it's everyone's fault but their own. Too many people sit around feeling sorry for themselves and blaming others instead of figuring out how to improve themselves. And that's for the people who want to work. But let's be honest ... there's a LOT of people out there looking for any excuse to not have to work.


Really? I'm good friends with a few single mothers who work multiple jobs and don't get or want government assistance. One of them received assistance for a short time but got off it as quickly as she could because she was embarrassed about it. That's one of the problems ... we're taking the embarrassment out of receiving government assistance and trying to make it acceptable. It sounds kind of cruel, but the embarrassment of receiving government assistance can be a strong motivator to work hard to get off of it.

It's one thing to use government assistance as a safety net. It's another thing to use it as a hammock. It all comes down to personal responsibility. As I said in my earlier post ... there's nothing wrong with needing and receiving some help. But you (in the general sense) should not expect other people, many who are struggling themselves, to take care of you and your family (again, "you" in the general sense).

not everyone leaving there job will get subsidies and its not a disincentive to work its only a disincentive if your are working just to pay for healthcare. Its not a matter of it being embarrassing nobody wants to be on assistance but the fact of the matter is some people need it. you seem to think because you know a single mother not on assistance no single mother should be on assistance but everyones situation is different. Not every person has the same opportunities the same smarts the same breaks and the same hardships, you have about 80% of the population fighting for about 15% of the nations wealth its ridiculous to assume everyone on government assistance is just lazy or a moocher. Our system is what puts these people on government assistance there is simply not enough money, jobs, or opportunities for everyone to be able to afford the medical care in this country. You think if we took away the government assistance people would just magically find a good paying job? Also yes I read the responses and I realize nobody is talking about obamacare killing jobs which was the point I was making since "obamacare killing jobs" is in the title of this thread.

[smokin3000gt]

Give it up Wally, ST is right YET AGAIN! Somehow this guy bats 1000 every time and has yet to be wrong about anything. I've never seen anything like it.

not everyone leaving there job will get subsidies and its not a disincentive to work its only a disincentive if your are working just to pay for healthcare. Its not a matter of it being embarrassing nobody wants to be on assistance but the fact of the matter is some people need it. you seem to think because you know a single mother not on assistance no single mother should be on assistance but everyones situation is different. Not every person has the same opportunities the same smarts the same breaks and the same hardships, you have about 80% of the population fighting for about 15% of the nations wealth its ridiculous to assume everyone on government assistance is just lazy or a moocher. Our system is what puts these people on government assistance there is simply not enough money, jobs, or opportunities for everyone to be able to afford the medical care in this country. You think if we took away the government assistance people would just magically find a good paying job? Also yes I read the responses and I realize nobody is talking about obamacare killing jobs which was the point I was making since "obamacare killing jobs" is in the title of this thread.

LOL! Huge difference between fighting for something, and wishing upon a star (or election) and hoping for it.

[fansince'76]

Give it up Wally, ST is right YET AGAIN! Somehow this guy bats 1000 every time and has yet to be wrong about anything. I've never seen anything like it.

It's why I don't even bother...

[steeldawg]

Give it up Wally, ST is right YET AGAIN! Somehow this guy bats 1000 every time and has yet to be wrong about anything. I've never seen anything like it.



LOL! Huge difference between fighting for something, and wishing upon a star (or election) and hoping for it.

What? dividing up 15%of the wealth among 80% of the population is why you have people on government assistance there simply is not enough to go around

[smokin3000gt]

What? dividing up 15%of the wealth among 80% of the population is why you have people on government assistance there simply is not enough to go around

Yup. That's why. Right-o again.

(HOW DOES THIS GUY DO IT?!)

[X-Terminator]

It's why I don't even bother...

I have simply cried uncle. I flat-out refuse to engage in this issue anymore with him, because all it's going to do is piss me off enough to lash out. Everyone else can feel free to repeatedly bash their heads against the wall if they'd like.

[steeldawg]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

[Mach1]

[Wallace108]

Give it up Wally, ST is right YET AGAIN! Somehow this guy bats 1000 every time and has yet to be wrong about anything. I've never seen anything like it.

I don't quit until I run out of beer.

not everyone leaving there job will get subsidies

If they're not getting subsidies, then how will they pay for health care? Especially after they quit their jobs.

its not a disincentive to work its only a disincentive if your are working just to pay for healthcare.

What's wrong with working to pay for health care? There's no such thing as free health care ... somebody has to work to pay for it. Why is it OK for the government to tell people it's acceptable to quit working because other people will work and pay for their health care? If you feel so strongly about your view, I'm willing to reduce my hours at work so I can spend more time with my kids if you're willing to pay my mortgage. Fair enough?

Its not a matter of it being embarrassing nobody wants to be on assistance but the fact of the matter is some people need it.

Of course there are people who get assistance but really don't want to, but there are far too many people who see nothing wrong with living off the assistance. I would think that is something we can agree on. The problem we're discussing is the message being sent by the government. Assistance (of all kinds) is available to people in need, and it's good that people (who truly need it) are aware of what's available to them to help them get on their feet. But what the government is doing now is not just making people aware of assistance; it's dangling free stuff in front of them and encouraging them to take it. Even people who technically don't need it are going to take it. The government should be encouraging people to work hard to better their lives, not quit their jobs and let other people work to take care of them.

you seem to think because you know a single mother not on assistance no single mother should be on assistance but everyones situation is different.

I'll need you to quote me where I said no single mother should receive assistance.

you have about 80% of the population fighting for about 15% of the nations wealth

This is a common misconception. The economy isn't a zero-sum game. If someone takes most of the pie, you can make more pie.

Our system is what puts these people on government assistance there is simply not enough money, jobs, or opportunities for everyone to be able to afford the medical care in this country.

I actually agree with you that it's our system that puts people on government assistance. Where we'll disagree though is on what we mean by "system."

You think if we took away the government assistance people would just magically find a good paying job?

No, I don't believe that at all, and I've never suggested that government assistance should be taken away. But it should be a last resort, not an entitlement. It should be a safety net, not a hammock. And it should be discouraged, not encouraged. The goal should be to get more people OFF assistance, not ON it.

If you continue to give people free stuff, it doesn't give them an incentive to want to work for it. Most people would rather not work. Ask people what's the first thing they'd do if they win the lottery, and the most popular response is going to be "Quit my job!" The government should be encouraging people to work, not giving them reasons not to.