The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: Rapunzel on February 06, 2014, 12:03:46 am
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/02/05/NYT-thinks-CBO-Report-a-Win
NYT: CBO's Obamacare Projection of 2.5 Million Jobs Lost 'A Good Thing'
by Warner Todd Huston 5 Feb 2014, 1:58 PM PDT 3
The New York Times editorial board has decided that the elimination of 2.5 million full-time jobs due to Obamacare is a great thing for the country.
The loss of all those jobs, the editorial board says, "is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law."
The Times seems quite pleased that over two million Americans will be "liberated" from their jobs. How can they claim this is good? Because the paper seems to think that government is now paying for Americans' health care.
Thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums--many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.
Notice what the Times is saying here. The paper thinks that healthcare subsidies should be given to workers so that they can work less and have more leisure time. Of course, this isn't how Obamacare subsidies were sold. Such federal aid was supposed to go to those who couldn't afford coverage, not those who wanted to get out of working full time.
The paper's main point is that workers won't feel "locked into a job" because they don't want to lose their health insurance, and they can take jobs they may like better even if those new jobs do not offer health care as an important perk.
Was this the purpose of Obamacare?
-
The loss of all those jobs, the editorial board says, "is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law."[/b]
Yeah for those too lazy to work, not so much for the rest who have to work to support their family and a few others as well.
-
It's an interesting and slightly unexpected spin. Very subtle, too.
There isn't a single person who hasn't woken up sometimes and thought "screw this job," then talked themselves into getting up anyway. A paycheck is a powerful motivator - health insurance moreso.
-
The loss of all those jobs, the editorial board says, "is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law."[/b]
Yeah for those too lazy to work, not so much for the rest who have to work to support their family and a few others as well.
I am going to paraphrase something that I have heard Rush say many times:
The democrat party cannot survive without a base of highly dependent folks who MUST vote for them under any circumstance or (they think) perish! If they don't have enough of those kinds of people they work like hell to make more of them!
Rush is right!
That is what this is about in it's entity!
-
I am going to paraphrase something that I have heard Rush say many times:
The democrat party cannot survive without a base of highly dependent folks who MUST vote for them under any circumstance or (they think) perish! If they don't have enough of those kinds of people they work like hell to make more of them!
Rush is right!
That is what this is about in it's entity!
Yes and with out schools turning out people too uneducated to find a job in this current workforce this is a growing constituency.
-
This is clearly the White House talking point. I'm seeing it posted all over the place by the usual liberal spammers who try to dominate every news sites out there.