Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
crockett, which is correct: The CBO report OR Politifact's spin on it?
Are you really not getting it? Come on!
You didn't post that url correctly. But from looking at what the URL says...it appears that it's Politifacts spinning off of something that Gretchen Carlson spun from the "other side" on Fox News.
Jesus man. What the fuck does Gretchen Carlson's dumb ass OPINION or Politifacts dumbass OPINION about her dumbass OPINION have to do with what the report itself plainly says?
Seriously? Are you going to pretend that you can't read the report for YOURSELF and see what it says in plain English?
Or would you rather get your info from Politifact spinning about Gretchen Carlson spinning?
There really isn't much hope for this country with this kind of thinking.
|
He posted a single line from the report and didn't represent what it said in context with the entire report. He cherry picked one line and ignored the rest,,
Why did he do that? We all know why, because that's what he was spoon fed from Fox News. He then ran here to tell us all how horrible Obamacare is, yet once again.
The CBO did not say the economy was not going to get better because of Obamacare. That is what Fox News said and it's HIS opinion not what was presented in that report.
He cherry picked a single line from a report that is about 200 pages long because it said a cut in jobs. He didn't however read the report or even the single page he claimed proved his point. He listened to Fox News or some right wing tell him what he wanted to hear website..
Why do I know he didn't read even page 118? Why? Because on the very page HE listed as HIS proof goes on to disprove the message he is trying to present. You guys cherry picked a single sentence from a paragraph in a report almost 200 pages long. In that paragraph you cherry picked a single sentence from, it goes on state what I quoted above...but hey since I know you guys didn't read it anyway I'll quote it again..
Quote:
The reduction in CBO?s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about
2.5 million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total employment (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that increase will be smaller than it would have been in the absence of the ACA. The decline in full- time-equivalent employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people not being employed at all and other people working fewer hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two components of the overall effect. 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 busi- nesses? 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 underemploy- ment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).
|
It's funny how he managed to selectively ignore what the entire paragraph stated, simply because he read a single sentence out of context provided by Fox News trying to make it seem as if these cut jobs would cause people to suck on the govt tit.
BTW since I know you guys didn't read the report in the first place as you just took what Fox News spoon fed you hook line and sinker, I bet you also missed the part where the report sates that the exchanges will save on average an additional 15% on healthcare polices for 2014 over what was projected in 2013. Humm sounds like the exchanges are doing what they were supposed to do.. Create open competition to lower prices...
It also goes on to state that 2015-17 period the govt will now save 8 billion in risk corridor payments because it was cut in half, from 16 billion to 8 billion..
You can find that nugget on page 114 btw...