We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Not that there is any reason to assume the CBO is 'impartial'. It likely is not. It's probably not any more impartial than a host of other predictive organizations out there. However, the CBO does have a larger veneer of impartiality than, say, the president's Council of Economic Advisers.
But today's release, by the CBO, about how Obamacare will impact the workforce is possibly the most insightful look into the potential damage this legislation will wreak on workers in the United States.
But wait! There's more! Spin, that is. After all, what good is an administration if it can't get the gullible masses to believe the CBO didn't say what it did say? I'm curious to see how this plays out (or doesn't, as is more likely) in the media over the next few days.
Has a single government program ever done more damage to the economy than 0bamacare?
The job losses, the people forced into part time work, the loss of disposable income via exponentially higher insurance premiums and the increased medical payments from the sky high deductibles are all economy killing factors.
The devastating economic impact boggles my feeble mind.
Hmmm... How about Medicare? It started the decline of the health care industry. Social Security is next because it is going to turn things upside down pretty soon unless there are massive changes. But given the time it's been around, it's a front runner.
Mudbug, you could be right that SS and Medicare do more damage to the economy. They certainly have in the aggregate, because they have been around for decades.
However, as you know, the introduction of those programs didn't throw millions into part time work or unemployment nor did they take anywhere close to the bite in disposable income that the premium increases are taking, let alone what the deductibles will cost.
Under the heading of unintended (Or not. Were they cunning enough to plan this?) consequences, one wonders if the demand for medical care will decline appreciably when the public may have to pick up the tab for the first 5-10 thousand in medical expenses?
Less demand should slow the rate of price increases unless supply drops as well. At least that is what econ 101 teaches.
Remember when all the MSM "fact check" columns said opponents were lying about Obamacare shifting people from full-time to part-time work?
Now fact checkers are saying Obamacare will indeed shift employees from full-time to part-time.
Fact checkers are probably the most vile of all the MSM propagandists.
The Obamacare fiasco is the logical extension of that long downward sloping path towards total government dependence Americans have been shuffling along for many years. I say since the income tax, others say since social security. It matters only a little because we are where we are. Indisputably, Americans are not breathing free anymore, they are breathing government. Absent a complete makeover involving massive suffering and upheaval, we are going to be dependant. As I have commented many times before, what industry, institution or individual does not depend on partial or total federal government subsidies? None or nearly enough to none as not to matter. Since nearly everyone depends on federal tax dollars for their livelihood, we may as well take the issue from that starting point. For me, that means getting efficient and getting real. If we must have a complete welfare state, let's do it as if we care about paying for it. Right now, as we all know, the massive expenditures of government flow through millions of faucets. Many thousands of faucets are turned on full blast at the same time to fund essentially the same policy goals. Yes, the government spends so much money it needs lots of help to spend it all. Obviously, the states and counties spend a lot. However, there are hundreds of thousands of so-called non-government, non-profit type organizations that spend tax money like crazy. We are all familiar with organizations like ACORN and we all should know about the church 'charities' now on the dole. Besides all of that, and for example, there are tens of thousands of organizations spending money on veteran programs. The list is endless. We are talking about redundancy and inefficiency like the world has never seen before. Want a welfare state? And the honest answer for nearly every American, in case you are still wondering, is a resounding yes. But, we need to pay for it. So, we must get efficient and cut redundant, overlapping spending. In addition, is everyone else just as pissed as I am that the two main entitlement programs are insolvent or very nearly so? I agree, it is unforgivable. May I suggest something? Other countries manage national trust funds. They fund them for anticipated future spending obligations. Unlike our so-called trust funds, which are stripped of funds, other countries keep money in them. Might be a goodish idea if we started doing the same. A properly managed national energy program could generate lots of money for such an effort. Just as soon as we get rid of the saboteur in chief and replace him with something that is minimally practical. Hitch up yer drawers Miss Hillary. Another rant under the belt, thank you for watching the meltdown.