Really new Obamacare numbers

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

JD, the republicans have blocked another bid to extend benefits to the long term unemployed. Here is the link. Clearly the republicans are insensitive to the unemployed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sena...-business.html

The Republicans are not insensitive to the unemployed But if they left it up to the Democrats unemployment would look like a new found career goal for many recipients.


Jim

[IIFFOFRDB]

Well said!


http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...p-larry-kudlow


FEBRUARY 6, 2014 5:00 PM
Obama’s Work Trap
Mr. President, you are no Harold Hamm.
By Larry Kudlow

Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources


So let me get this right. Team Obama taxes millionaires who create jobs, while Obamacare creates incentives not to work at those jobs. No wonder recovery is so anemic. The policy here is to create fewer jobs and induce people to work less at those jobs. If my logic is correct, this runs counter to the most basic principles of our economy and our country.

I thought the American Idea (see Jack Kemp and Paul Ryan) had at least something to do with the virtues of work, family, and opportunity. But what I see from the Obama administration is policies that undermine these ideals.

Here’s a contrasting vision. Last week I interviewed the great entrepreneur Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources, who has harnessed the technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to completely revolutionize the energy sector of our economy. He has turned North Dakota into Saudi Arabia. Energy independence is in sight.

Now, the energy sector is responsible for roughly 10 percent of our growth. And tens of thousands of energy jobs are now being created at very high wages, all while our trade deficit is evaporating and our entire Middle East foreign policy may be changing.


Of course, the Obama administration is taking credit for the oil-and-gas revolution. But they initially opposed it and in fact had nothing to do with it. And if they opened up federal lands and offshore drilling, the energy success would be even greater. But that’s not happening.
The fact is, the energy revolution is a perfect down-home example of free-market economics at work, not government planning.

One of the things that caught my eye about the Harold Hamm story is that roughly 10 million oil-and-gas royalty owners now exist across the country. I am going to bet the energy revolution has created thousands of new millionaires. This reminds me of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerman, whose wildly successful entrepreneurial ventures also created thousands of new millionaires. Not just investors, but low-level staffers who got just a little bit of stock when Microsoft or Apple or Facebook was started. They became millionaires.

And that money didn’t go under mattresses. One way or the other it circulated through our economic system, creating thousands of new companies, vastly more jobs, and even more millionaires.

In other words, wealth creates businesses that create jobs that create a rising tide that lifts all boats.

I say this because President Obama doesn’t seem to get this. He is hung up on inequality. But why is wealth- and income-inequality bad? If the oil-royalty owner makes $1 million, while the roustabout in the field in North Dakota or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania makes $100,000, there is greater inequality, but everybody benefits. What Obama doesn’t get is that the creation of successful millionaires is not a zero-sum game. The millionaire’s success does not come at the expense of everyone else. In fact, that success makes everyone better off.

Free-market capitalism should make us all equal at the starting line, and that should lead to better though unequal outcomes at the finish line. The point here is opportunity, freedom, and economic dynamism. More millionaires create healthier economies with more jobs, stronger families, and better lives than our parents and grandparents had.

But now comes a new CBO study of Obamacare, which exposes a perverse incentive system that will cause the equivalent loss of 2.5 million jobs over the next decade as people work less, not more.

In the Obama scheme, an industrious person climbing the ladder of opportunity is penalized heavily for his or her success. Health-care subsidies are reduced as a result of her higher income, while marginal tax rates go up as she shifts into a higher tax bracket. So she loses the government benefit and her effective federal tax climbs higher.

There is no ladder of opportunity here. It’s really a work trap that becomes a poverty trap. It’s similar to the other traps found in welfare, food stamps, unemployment compensation, and the marriage penalty.

Democrats defend this work trap as providing more leisure time. But they forget to tell you that the perverse health-care incentives that lead to less work also lead to less income, less wealth, less opportunity, and less economic freedom to prosper.

So step back for a moment and look at the contrasting visions of Harold Hamm and Obamacare. Mr. Hamm’s roustabouts and millionaires create huge incentives to work and prosper. President Obama’s health-care plan creates huge incentives not to work, not to supply labor, not to work harder, and not to create the opportunity for a rosier future.

The former is an optimistic vision. The latter is profoundly pessimistic. This whole central-planning rigmarole called Obamacare runs counter to the great traditions and values of America.

[JD Barleycorn]

This is no equality in work. Someone works harder then they get paid more. Under socialism....oops, Obama's ideal society everyone gets paid the same regardless of the effort.

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

JD, the republicans have blocked another bid to extend benefits to the long term unemployed. Here is the link. Clearly the republicans are insensitive to the unemployed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sena...-business.html

Flghtr65, I can't keep track since you Obama supporters keep changing the tune, but which is it?

1) The Economy is growing and jobs are being created by the MILLIONS and all is well.. in which case we shouldn't need "emergency CRISIS" extension of the unemployment benefits.. FOR THE 12TH TIME since Obama took office.
or
2) The Economy is in a crisis and sinking fast and jobs are not being created, and so we need "Emergency CRISIS" extension because Obama has been LYING to us all about how things are getting better?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Flghtr65, I can't keep track since you Obama supporters keep changing the tune, but which is it?

1) The Economy is growing and jobs are being created by the MILLIONS and all is well.. in which case we shouldn't need "emergency CRISIS" extension of the unemployment benefits.. FOR THE 12TH TIME since Obama took office.
or
2) The Economy is in a crisis and sinking fast and jobs are not being created, and so we need "Emergency CRISIS" extension because Obama has been LYING to us all about how things are getting better?

1. Red505, you are combining the threads. JD had said in another post that the Senate went on their January recess and did not take a vote extending unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. So, the previous reply was to show that the Republicans did vote against extending unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.

2. As far as the economy goes, December 2013 was a lot better than December 2008 the last full month of the Bush and Cheney disaster. Fourth quarter 2008 ended with the USA being in the steepest recession since the great depression of 1929. Let's see the following firms were all bankrupt and had to be bailed out.

GM, Chrysler, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae, Chase Bank, CityGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, just to name a few.

The republicans were A ok with bailing out wall street and the auto industry. Things are a lot better now than they were 4th quarter 2008. The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.7% However, there are some long term unemployed out there that the DOL does not count. If is ok for the government to bail out Wall street after they lost all of their money trading unregulated securities, it should be ok to help John Dough on Main Street. Fortune 500 companies are making as much money now as they ever have. Executive compensation is at an ALL TIME HIGH. Companies have been slow to hire after the recession hit. The bottom line is the economy has improved and companies are doing better. Hiring has not come back to where it was before the recession hit 4th quarter 2008. Republicans are insensitive to the unemployed. The republicans did not have a problem giving AIG a 250 billion dollar TARP loan, the largest of the TARP loans that the government gave out. The democrats voted to extend unemployment benefits, the republicans should too.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

2. As far as the economy goes, December 2013 was a lot better than December 2008 the last full month of the Bush and Cheney disaster. Fourth quarter 2008 ended with the USA being in the steepest recession since the great depression of 1929. Let's see the following firms were all bankrupt and had to be bailed out.

GM, Chrysler, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae, Chase Bank, CityGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, just to name a few.

Yea buddy...


The economy was in the shit hole when Bush-Cheney took over in 2001 .... so what?

The major difference is that when Bush-Cheney were elected in 2000 Clinton was running around the country pissed off because Cheney was saying that was the first thing they needed to address ... Clinton was still denying the economy was shit until he moved out of the White House.

And Bush knew AND SAID things were bad in the fall of 2008 .... and after the election ... Obaminable came to the White House to meet with him to discuss the "bail outs" ... Bush wasn't running around lying about it ....



As for the "unemployment" rate, you might want to look at the computations and the data base from which it is derived to "make things look better"!

The BLS did the same before the elections in 2000 .... in fact the numbers posted in September were simply posted again in October ... by December the AFL-CIO was screaming bloody murder at Clinton-Gore for understating through the BLS the actual unemployment............ add in the folks who have quit looking for a job, because they don't want to waste the time ... now add in the ones who don't have to look for a job to get health insurance .... the ACTUAL unemployment for those who want to work ... is closer to the 2 figure numbers ...

Here's CNN's take on it ...

http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/10/news...r-jobs-report/

"2013 ends with weakest job growth in years" .. That's the headline. Read the meat!

"Meanwhile, the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% in December, but the drop came mainly from workers leaving the labor force. Job market dropouts could be doing other things, like retiring, enrolling in educational programs or taking care of relatives. But many have simply given up hope of finding work.

"Only 62.8% of the adult population is participating in the labor market now -- meaning they either have a job or are looking for one. That matches the lowest level since 1978."

May I repeat: "That matches the lowest level since 1978."

1978!!!!

It is so bad Obaminable just issued an executive order to the IRS that employers cannot law off people or reduce their hours WITHOUT explaining under oath (penalty of perjury) to the IRS the reason for the lay offs or reductions AND the reason cannot be because of the ACA!!!!! Get that! ....

Now the administration can declare BASED ON IRS RECORDS that lay offs and work reductions ARE NOT BECAUSE OF THE ACA ... because if it is ....

employers are PROHIBITED FROM LAYING OFF OR REDUCING HOURS.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The economy was in a pure, unadulterated, 100% shit hole when Bush-Cheney left office in 2009 .... so what?

Fixed it for you!

No charge!

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Yea buddy...


The economy was in the shit hole when Bush-Cheney took over in 2001 .... so what?




.

Really? The following firms were not bankrupt in Jan 2001. They were bankrupt in December 2008.

GM, Chysler, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Chase Bank, CityGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, just to name a few.

The bottom line is Bush did not inherit the steepest recession since the great depression, his 8 years led to the steepest recession since the great depression. Bush lowered taxes and increased spending in addition to wasting 2 trillion chasing after WMD's in Iraq.

Back to the main point of this post is that the Republicans were willing to Bail out Wall street, but they are not willing to help main street. It's as if the republicans only look at the unemployment number that the DOL reports (which currently 6.7%).

Despite what you said in the last post, Fortune 500 companies are making more money now than they ever have, EVER. Unfortunately their success has not lead to more job hiring. The DJIA has gained 8 thousand points since Bush left office. When was the last time the DJIA moved that much in 5 years?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Really? The following firms were not bankrupt in Jan 2001. They were bankrupt in December 2008.

GM, Chysler, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Chase Bank, CityGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, just to name a few.

The bottom line is Bush did not inherit the steepest recession since the great depression, his 8 years led to the steepest recession since the great depression. Bush lowered taxes and increased spending in addition to wasting 2 trillion chasing after WMD's in Iraq.

It appears that LL should give some serious thought on how to gracefully weasel his way out of the corner he painted himself into.

A really big OOPS, on his part!

Perhaps he should consider turning himself into a cockroach and walk on the walls.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Really? The following firms were not bankrupt in Jan 2001. They were bankrupt in December 2008.

... Wells Fargo...

.....

Despite what you said in the last post, Fortune 500 companies are making more money now than they ever have, EVER. Unfortunately their success has not lead to more job hiring. The DJIA has gained 8 thousand points since Bush left office. When was the last time the DJIA moved that much in 5 years?

Are you sure Wells Fargo went bankrupt in 2008?

Yep, company profits are up for a number of reasons. Some, like Apple and Google, have put productivity products in the hands of every American. But their production for the most part is done in countries without a Social Security program, OSHA laws, huge national debts, diversity programs, unemployment insurance, generous welfare and food stamp programs, extensive health care networks, etc etc

Other companies, like Wal-mart and the banks you mention, have benefited from a trillion of dollars being put into the economy.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

1. Red505, you are combining the threads. JD had said in another post that the Senate went on their January recess and did not take a vote extending unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. So, the previous reply was to show that the Republicans did vote against extending unemployment benefits to the long term unemployed.

2. As far as the economy goes, December 2013 was a lot better than December 2008 the last full month of the Bush and Cheney disaster. Fourth quarter 2008 ended with the USA being in the steepest recession since the great depression of 1929. Let's see the following firms were all bankrupt and had to be bailed out.

GM, Chrysler, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae, Chase Bank, CityGroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, just to name a few.

The republicans were A ok with bailing out wall street and the auto industry. Things are a lot better now than they were 4th quarter 2008. The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.7% However, there are some long term unemployed out there that the DOL does not count. If is ok for the government to bail out Wall street after they lost all of their money trading unregulated securities, it should be ok to help John Dough on Main Street. Fortune 500 companies are making as much money now as they ever have. Executive compensation is at an ALL TIME HIGH. Companies have been slow to hire after the recession hit. The bottom line is the economy has improved and companies are doing better. Hiring has not come back to where it was before the recession hit 4th quarter 2008. Republicans are insensitive to the unemployed. The republicans did not have a problem giving AIG a 250 billion dollar TARP loan, the largest of the TARP loans that the government gave out. The democrats voted to extend unemployment benefits, the republicans should too.

So you're comparing the economy in 2008 when the problem began to the quarter after FIVE years of recovery. Talk about cherry picking! Why don't you compare 4th quarter of 2007? You know why? The same reason that jouranlists keep saying that Obamas economic numbers are the best since some year in the Bush adminstration.

Those firms wee not bankrupt. They had assets and did not need to be bailed out. Bush, McCain and Obama decided that they had to maintain the status quo. That is why they got bailed out.

The real unemployment rate is over 12 percent and you know it. (if you use 2008 standards)

Hack!!!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

So you're comparing the economy in 2008 when the problem began to the quarter after FIVE years of recovery. !!!

Look...did you want Obama to cut taxes, start a war and ease credit so much that we have another 5 year bubble?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Those firms wee not bankrupt. They had assets and did not need to be bailed out. Bush, McCain and Obama decided that they had to maintain the status quo. That is why they got bailed out.

Wrong JD. AIG lost a record 62 billion dollars in the 4th quarter of 2008. There would not be a need to give them 250 billion dollars in bailout money if they had assets. AIG had over 74 million insurance policies enforce all over the world. There is no way that they could cover that insurance with the losses they suffered trading unregulated securities.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/15/AIG...ist/index.html

[Guest040616]

Apparently, LL has yet to figure out a way to get out of the corner he painted himself into.

Perhaps we will hear from him again when the paint dries.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The real unemployment rate is over 12 percent and you know it. (if you use 2008 standards)

Prove it.