Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett
Actually it was explained the first page, it's been explained what was meant by CBO themselves but somehow you and Glen Beck know more than everyone else.
|
You mean this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K
In fact, the CBO researchers explicitly state that, “[t]he estimated reduction [in labor] 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.”
|
Is that really in the CBO Report?
Because Vendzilla was taking it from the actual report.
What BFT3K is typing there sounds like a Pro-ObamaCare advocate spinning the report. And yep...it's just some writer from ThinkProgress.Com A biased pro-Democrat website. lol
crockett, can you find in the actual report where it says that this is a "good thing"?
You don't think it's good do you? A drop in the labor force and tax base is never a good thing for the overall economy and is in fact the exact OPPOSITE of what we were told needed to happen for ObamaCare to make sense mathematically isn't it?
Remember? There were going to be so many people PAYING for it in a "big pool" that it was not only going to NOT cost the govt. "ONE THIN DIME" (as the Pres. said over and over in speeches) but it would also LOWER the cost of healthcare (as the Pres. said over and over in speeches).
As I understand it, the majority of people who have bothered to sign up for "ObamaCare" have signed up for the expanded Medicare. The FREE part.
Very few have signed on to actually pay for anything.
And now the CBO Report explicitly says that 2.5 million (at least) will drop out of even trying to have a job. Which means that is 2.5 million MORE people who aren't contributing.
How can that make sense? Or as the Pres. loved to say when attacking his opponents in speeches over and over: "The math just doesn't add up"