AOL controversy and Obamacare comments and costs

[JustRalph]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649.html

AOL is going to pay for Obamacare costs (7.1 million) by cutting 401k match

They tried to slip that in on employees

Employees not happy............

I'm sure none of them voted for Obama though.........

[tucker6]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/aol-401k_n_4738649.html

AOL is going to pay for Obamacare costs (7.1 million) by cutting 401k match

They tried to slip that in on employees

Employees not happy............

I'm sure none of them voted for Obama though.........
Yet company execs are evil for pushing costs onto employees, but our liberal friends on here don't see the same thing when Obama/dems push costs onto citizens (the very same workers). Why should AOL take it in the shorts? The problem is that as I showed yesterday, none of the top 4 democrats in the govt (Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi) have ever been in private business, and therefore they do not understand the decision tree used by private enterprise when viewing govt policies. What we need is more people in govt with a business acumen.

[Clocker]

The problem is that as I showed yesterday, none of the top 4 democrats in the govt (Obama, Biden, Reid, Pelosi) have ever been in private business, and therefore they do not understand the decision tree used by private enterprise when viewing govt policies. What we need is more people in govt with a business acumen.

The big principle that they don't understand is that taxes, fees, mandated benefits, etc., are not paid for out of the owners' pockets. Those costs of doing business are passed on in the form of higher prices to consumers or lower pay to employees.

I have tried to explain to socialists that businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do. The response is always, of course businesses pay taxes. They write out a check and send it to the government. They can't make the connection that the money in the checking account didn't come from the owners, it came from the customers. If it came from the owners, other than short term as in the case of a start-up, the owners would not be owners very long. They would find an alternative use for their money.

The latest example of this total lack of understanding of how the world works is in the current farm bill. The bill includes a tax increase on propane, supposedly earmarked to fund research on more efficient fuel usage. The law prohibits passing the tax on to the consumer. What planet do these people live on?

[tucker6]

The latest example of this total lack of understanding of how the world works is in the current farm bill. The bill includes a tax increase on propane, supposedly earmarked to fund research on more efficient fuel usage. The law prohibits passing the tax on to the consumer. What planet do these people live on?
That is whacked. :D

[FantasticDan]

I'm reminded of Mosty's post from yesterday regarding Ralph:

You are what you accuse me of being. A sycophant for the right. A man who post stories that contradict their thesis right in the story. I can not count the number of times I have found something in a story you posted that disproves what you think the story is about.

And this is another example. Anyone who reads the article can tell this has little to do Obamacare and more to do with this CEO's buffoonery. Two distressed babies? What? :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

And this is another example. Anyone who reads the article can tell this has little to do Obamacare and more to do with this CEO's buffoonery. Two distressed babies? What? :rolleyes:

Are you saying that the company's expenses did not go up because of ObamaCare?

[HUSKER55]

that is what he said...I think.

[FantasticDan]

Are you saying that the company's expenses did not go up because of ObamaCare?Ehh..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/06/1275649/-Breaking-There-s-still-an-AOL-and-its-CEO-is-an-nbsp-a-hole

Ok, let's stop here for a bit. $7.1 million in increased Obamacare costs? How? AOL is a huge company, which provided health insurance benefits to employees before Obamacare. Since it was already offering benefits, it didn't come under the employer mandate (which doesn't go into effect for another year, anyway). So Armstrong would have to be asserting that Cigna, their provider, decided to charge AOL $7.1 million more this year for health insurance? Because of Obamacare? Bullshit. Perhaps understanding that this sounded like bullshit, Armstrong dug deeper, blaming the increase—and this is really assholish—on two employees.

[TJDave]

What we need is more people in govt with a business acumen.

Wrong. Governments are not businesses and should not be run as such. Providing for the common good is mostly not compatible with profit making. Good governments are altruistic by nature...The antithesis of business interest.

What we need are selfless politicians who operate not for special interests but in the interest of all the people.

[Clocker]

Ehh..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/06/1275649/-Breaking-There-s-still-an-AOL-and-its-CEO-is-an-nbsp-a-hole

Ok, let's stop here for a bit. $7.1 million in increased Obamacare costs? How? AOL is a huge company, which provided health insurance benefits to employees before Obamacare. Since it was already offering benefits, it didn't come under the employer mandate (which doesn't go into effect for another year, anyway).

From what I have seen, it appears that the AOL CEO is a butthead. But neither that nor anything else presented shows any evidence that AOL's costs are not going up.

The critics are also claiming that if there are any increases due to ObamaCare, they do not take affect this year. There is no evidence one way or the other on this. Even if most of the impact of ObamaCare hits next year, there are big one-time costs in restructuring a benefit program for a large company, and everything has to be in place by the end of the year. And while they are at it, they would naturally make any other changes to benefits they felt necessary.

In short, there is no evidence to show that the $7 million number is right or wrong, and there is no evidence to show whether the changes to the benefits package are the result of prudence or greed.

[tucker6]

Wrong. Governments are not businesses and should not be run as such. Providing for the common good is mostly not compatible with profit making. Good governments are altruistic by nature...The antithesis of business interest.

What we need are selfless politicians who operate not for special interests but in the interest of all the people.
so you would prefer that our politicians not understand the fundamentals of capitalism to best decide how to implement govt policy?

I also do not agree that providing for the common good is mostly not compatible with profit making. I'm no bleeding heart liberal by any definition, but if you have a safe community with good schools and a vibrant cultural experience (all common goods), a company stands a better chance of making more profits via happier and better employees than in a community without some or all of those attributes.

What I don't agree with is the notion that govt has to provide all those common goods. Govt is kicking soup kitchens and other privately funded endeavors out of the care business and using tax dollars to do it. I have a fundamental problem with that. Supplement those organizations, but don't replace them with a govt program that will never go away and only get bigger.

[mostpost]

Fantastic Dan has done a fine job of pointing out that this is another example of a company cutting benefits and falsely blaming Obamacare. I would like to comment on that tired old conservative scree that companies don't pay taxes.

If companies always pass on all the expense of their taxes to their customers, then why are companies so fanatical in their opposition to any increase in their taxes? How many stories have the conservatives on this board posted about companies moving to different states and countries to avoid taxes. What difference would that make if this expense was entirely passed on to customers.

The truth is that some of the burden of taxes is passed on to the customers, but much of it is simply eaten by the company. Why do companies make this claim? In order to fool people like clocker and JustRalph into opposing any taxes for corporations or other businesses.

Businesses pay taxes. If they didn't we would not hear such vociferous complaining about taxes from them.

[Clocker]

Wrong. Governments are not businesses and should not be run as such. Providing for the common good is mostly not compatible with profit making. Good governments are altruistic by nature...The antithesis of business interest.


The point is not that government should be run like a business. The point is that the people running the government should know enough about business to know the impact of laws and policies on the real world.

Two words describe the great danger of politicians without business knowledge: unintended consequences. I don't care how altruistic you are, if you say that I have to provide insurance to all my employees that work more than 30 hours a week without seeing the potential consequences on hours worked, you are a danger to your constituents.

[Clocker]

Fantastic Dan has done a fine job of pointing out that this is another example of a company cutting benefits and falsely blaming Obamacare.

He repeated unproven allegations that may or may not be true. There is no evidence presented here to show that ObamaCare is not increasing the company's cost, or to show that the $7.1 million figure is true or false.

He has proven that the AOL CEO is lacking in social and employee management skills.

[mostpost]

What happens if we do eliminate corporate income taxes? How do we replace that income? We replace it by increasing personal income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes and other taxes paid by the individual; so that the individual ends up paying a lot more in taxes than previously. All of this happens with no guarantee that the corporation will pass on the savings in lower prices. In fact I can guarantee they will not.

Would cutting corporate taxes stimulate the economy? The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities says no.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3290
The CBPP says such actions:

Would produce no net short-term stimulus, due to state balanced-budget requirements.

Could lead to a near-term drop in total in-state economic activity because corporations are unlikely to spend the full amount of the tax cut in-state

Would create little or no added incentive for corporate investment in the long run.

Do not “pay for themselves.

Could adversely affect long-term growth by leading to cuts in public services

Finally, according to the CBPP, such cases
Are not rooted in real-world economic success stories. There is only one recent example of a state eliminating its corporate income tax. Ohio phased out its corporate income tax from 2005 to 2009, and it also eliminated its taxation of business machinery, equipment, and inventory property. Although the state substituted a different type of general business tax, the new tax did not even fully replace the revenue from the business property tax; in other words, Ohio effectively repealed its corporate income tax without replacing any of the revenue. Nonetheless, despite a more than $1 billion annual reduction in business taxes, Ohio’s shares of national income, employment, and investment have all fallen slightly since 2005.

[Clocker]

The truth is that some of the burden of taxes is passed on to the customers, but much of it is simply eaten by the company.

This is errant nonsense. Taxes are a cost of doing business, no different than raw materials or rent or utilities. They are factored into the pricing decision. A business no more eats part of its tax bill than it eats part of its electric bill.

Why do companies make this claim? In order to fool people like clocker and JustRalph into opposing any taxes for corporations or other businesses.

How do you presume to know the experience and thoughts and knowledge of people that post here? No one fools me about how businesses operate. I have worked for large and small businesses, often in management positions where I was involved in cost and price analysis. I have been involved on the ground floor of several large start-ups, and ran my own business. Have you even worked for a private company, let alone in management involved with financial issues? You certainly show no evidence of relevant knowledge in that area. How do you presume to conclude that I am equally ignorant?


Businesses pay taxes. If they didn't we would not hear such vociferous complaining about taxes from them.

Businesses don't like increases in the costs of any factors of production. And taxes can change the competitive nature of a firm's position in a market. If the taxes get high enough, the company may have to change the way it operates or even the country where it operates. In the short run, a company might have to eat a tax increase until it can adapt to the change. In the long run, it passes them on to its customers or it does something to avoid them.

[TJDave]

The point is that the people running the government should know enough about business to know the impact of laws and policies on the real world.


They know.

They have lobbyists to instruct them.

[Clocker]

They know.

They have lobbyists to instruct them.

You mean like the lobbyists that wrote the ObamaCare bill (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1)?

They did a fine job of feathering their own nests. They didn't do too good a job of instructing the legislators who voted for it, and who are now spinning like crazy to distance themselves from it in the next election.

[mostpost]

He repeated unproven allegations that may or may not be true. There is no evidence presented here to show that ObamaCare is not increasing the company's cost, or to show that the $7.1 million figure is true or false.

He has proven that the AOL CEO is lacking in social and employee management skills.
I will stipulate that the $7.1 figure is true. Why should that be cause for AOL to reduce its contributions to its employees 401K? In the last quarter of 2013 AOL earned $679M. Multiply that times four quarters and we come up with earnings of $2.716B in 2013. But let's assume that the earnings for the first three quarters were not as good as the last. Let's put the 2013 earnings at $2B.
That $7.1M is .0035 percent of the years earnings. (35 hundredths of one percent.)

[TJDave]

A business no more eats part of its tax bill than it eats part of its electric bill.


I can tell you from experience that they do. Many times I had to eat some expense because my customer wouldn't. Ideally, you'd like to pass through all costs but in the real world it doesn't always work that way. So you try to make up somewhere else.

[mostpost]

You mean like the lobbyists that wrote the ObamaCare bill (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1)?

They did a fine job of feathering their own nests. They didn't do too good a job of instructing the legislators who voted for it, and who are now spinning like crazy to distance themselves from it in the next election.
First you say we should have more businessmen in government. Then you say we should have less businessmen in government. Which is it?
I can just imagine how biased and disfunctional the government would be if these people were in charge instead of being just advisers.

[Clocker]

Ideally, you'd like to pass through all costs but in the real world it doesn't always work that way. So you try to make up somewhere else.

I said that you may have to eat some expenses in the short run. In the long run, you fix it or you move on, especially in a small business.

[Clocker]

First you say we should have more businessmen in government. Then you say we should have less businessmen in government. Which is it?

I did not say either of those things. I said that politicians should have some knowledge of how the real world works, preferably through some actual experience in the real world. And having lobbyists write bills certainly is not the same as having business experience in government. It is the polar opposite. If the politicians had any knowledge of business in general, and the insurance industry in particular, they would not have to delegate their legislative responsibilities to lobbyists.

[Clocker]

I can just imagine how biased and disfunctional the government would be if these people were in charge instead of being just advisers.

Did you read that article? The lobbyists were in charge of ObamaCare. The insurance industry wrote the bill. And it is dysfunctional. But the industry got what they wanted out of it at the expense of the rest of the country.

[TJDave]

If the politicians had any knowledge of business in general, and the insurance industry in particular, they would not have to delegate their legislative responsibilities to lobbyists.

Politicians chose to delegate their responsibilities not because of lack of knowledge but greed and self-preservation.

Politicians are far from stupid. They have access to the same, or more, information as you or I.

[Clocker]

Politicians are far from stupid. They have access to the same, or more, information as you or I.

But it doesn't do you any good if you don't use it. Or if the system or the leadership effectively prevents it. Even Max Baucus, the lead Senator on the ObamaCare bill, admitted that he had never read it. And if he or anyone else that voted for it had read it, it would not have done them any good. The bill was legislative language with hundreds if not thousands of references to other laws that it was changing. And even if they understood that, the guts of the program were not in the bill. The bill was a framework, delegating authority to the Secy. of Health and Human Services to write thousands of pages of rules and regulations to implement the bill without legislative review. That bill was an act of faith. The members voted for it because the leadership told them it was a good thing.

This is not a Democrat problem alone. The Republicans do the same thing when they are in charge. It is a symptom of a government that has grown so big that it does not know what it is doing. The irony is that when Nancy Pelosi said that we had to pass the bill to see what was in it, she was describing the entire federal government. And the madness continues. The Senate recently passed a 1000+ page immigration bill and the House passed a 1000+ page farm bill. And all any of them knew is that their little pork project was in the bill and their leaders told them it was a good bill, so they voted for it.

[JustRalph]

I can tell you from experience that they do. Many times I had to eat some expense because my customer wouldn't. Ideally, you'd like to pass through all costs but in the real world it doesn't always work that way. So you try to make up somewhere else.

And this says it all. From someone who has run a business obviously. Dan, you can't see it? You point out that you think I posted something that is inaccurate? Because you can't see it? You have to read not just the words but absorb the stuff between the lines and analyze the thought process. He said it was due to Obamacare. It's a regulatory burden that cost them 7 million bucks. plain and simple. He found a way to make it up or at least partially make it up by cutting employee bennies. Plain and simple.

Dave points it out perfectly. Clocker points out the other half of the equation. Businesses have to pass on tax burden to customers. It's the only way to survive. And for mosties point, businesses lobby against higher taxes because they know that every time they have to pass on those costs, they price themselves out of part of their customer base. As your prices rise, your pool of prospective customers dwindles. If you can't understand that, and those two points, then you end up posting stupid shit on a message board and accusing others of not knowing what they are talking about. I have run a small business. I know what happens when the State adds taxes and fees and gas goes up and more and more. I have been there. I took the phone calls from my customers wanting to know why my "trip charges" increased. Why my labor rate went up. After the government comes up with fabricated taxes that are dreamed up by some State committee, business owners have to find a way to make up the difference. It's simple.

Dave hits it right on the head. You pass as much as you can along, but there is a point where you realize your customers can only accept so much in an increase. So you make it up somewhere else. You have to. You can only eat so much before you are no longer profitable. AOL employees are paying for Obamacare. It's that simple. And it's coming out of their 401k's. Which means they are going to miss out on not only the matching funds, but years of interest on that money. They are mortgaging Obamacare for others. Yet they blindly blame the business they work for. It's the government. Any AOL employee who loses out on this deal, and voted for Obama, should be kicking themselves in the ass.

[Clocker]

Duke University survey (http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/duke-university-44-us-firms-consider-cutting-health-care-current-workers) of businesses shows 44% are considering cutting benefits to current employees due to ObamaCare.

Adding to a devastating CBO report of how Obamacare could damage the economy, a Duke University survey of top companies found that 44 percent are considering reducing health benefits to current employees due to Obamacare, confirming the fears of millions of American workers.

In its December survey of chief financial officers around the country, Duke also found that nearly half are “reluctant to hire full-time employers because of the Affordable Care Act.”

And 40 percent are considering shifting to part-time workers and others will hire fewer workers of fire some to avoid the costs of the program.

What’s more, they said in the study, “One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.”

[Mike at A+]

Carney's 0bamacare comment will be emblazoned on the tombstone of liberalism.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/krauthammer-carneys-obamacare-comment-will-be-emblazoned-tombstone-liberalism

[JustRalph]

Carney's 0bamacare comment will be emblazoned on the tombstone of liberalism.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/krauthammer-carneys-obamacare-comment-will-be-emblazoned-tombstone-liberalism

plain as day........ he said it. They can decide if they want to work....... :bang:

A permanent underclass dependent on government. They same thing they have done with Welfare and the War on Poverty. Suck them in and then keep them there. Forever at the teat of the Democrat party. We are into the 4th generation of the permanent underclass. Will they ever learn? Never!!

[Clocker]

plain as day........ he said it. They can decide if they want to work....... :bang:


Carney and Pelosi and Reid and the rest are misreporting what the CBO report said about this. The CBO did not say that ObamaCare lets you decide whether or not to work.

What the CBO said was that if you are receiving a subsidy on the ObamaCare exchanges, your income can go down noticeably if you are unemployed and find a job, or if you are working part time and find full time work, or if you have a job and find a better job. In every case, earning more money can result in a decrease in subsidy that is larger than the increase in money income.

The CBO said that ObamaCare is a disincentive to personal improvement. The director of the CBO called it a tax on the supply of labor. In many cases, ObamaCare penalizes you for working.

[Mike at A+]

In every case, earning more money can result in a decrease in subsidy that is larger than the increase in money income.
And if anyone knows how to game the system, it's 0bama's underclass. They have it down to a science and even have advocacy groups showing them the ropes. It used to be an embarrassment to be on welfare, today it is a badge of honor for the sponges.

[Boris]

The truth is that some of the burden of taxes is passed on to the customers, but much of it is simply eaten by the company.



What happens if we do eliminate corporate income taxes? How do we replace that income? We replace it by increasing personal income taxes and sales taxes and property taxes and other taxes paid by the individual; so that the individual ends up paying a lot more in taxes than previously. All of this happens with no guarantee that the corporation will pass on the savings in lower prices. In fact I can guarantee they will not.


Simply eaten by the company vs. How do we replace that income? You're a hoot! You admit government will increase prices (taxes) on individuals but don't acknowledge business will. Well, you do acknowledge it, but don't seem concerned about it. Why are they different?

[fast4522]

Simply eaten by the company vs. How do we replace that income? You're a hoot! You admit government will increase prices (taxes) on individuals but don't acknowledge business will. Well, you do acknowledge it, but don't seem concerned about it. Why are they different?

You are too kind, this guy is just as daft about business and how it works (its mission) as another guy is about global warming. When government imposes taxes on business its mission is the bottom line plane and simple. In the long run there will be someone who becomes part of the percentage that gets raped for the business model guaranteed.

[Tom]

What happens when everyone decides they don't want to work?
Who do the democrats look to steal their wealth then?

The foundation of liberalism to to take from others. And no war.
A conundrum fr sure - no one to take from unless you are willing to fight them for it. Nothing worse than being a dependent coward! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[davew]

First you say we should have more businessmen in government. Then you say we should have less businessmen in government. Which is it?
I can just imagine how biased and disfunctional the government would be if these people were in charge instead of being just advisers.

not like this ->

We do not like the XXX business but do not know much about it except we want more people in the country to get it.

You people represent the XXX business and know all about it, could you write us an all-encompassing bill that would help us get it to more people?

[mostpost]

Carney's 0bamacare comment will be emblazoned on the tombstone of liberalism.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/06/krauthammer-carneys-obamacare-comment-will-be-emblazoned-tombstone-liberalism
Charles Krauthammer is not dumb. Paul Ryan is not dumb. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are deliberately misrepresenting here.

No one is saying that poor people no longer have to work because of Obamacare. The people who now may have the option to stop work or reduce hours are those whose family income was sufficient to take care of their other needs. These people were working primarily because they could get health insurance no other way.

If they can now get health insurance which they pay for and if their family income is enough to provide for their other needs, why should they work if they do not have to or want to.

I seriously doubt that a mother who is struggling to put food on the table for her children is going to say, "Oh wonderful, I have Obamacare. I will never have to work again." That is not the person that Jay Carney is referring to.
That is not the person any of us is referring to.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Then you have the uncommon variety like me that like to work and generally do to some degree at their leisure to cover the minimal amount of overhead in their lives that are now forced to actually look at too much income as an overall negative.

So, the whole "job locked" theory actually plays out the opposite of what they are selling. I'm "job ****ed". I have to be careful not to do what I enjoy because I enjoy it and can make a little money doing it or risk being burdened with a bill for something I can get for free that may consume a disproportionate amount of my actual revenue to the point that it is illogical to work at all.

[Mike at A+]

Charles Krauthammer is not dumb. Paul Ryan is not dumb. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are deliberately misrepresenting here.
What are they misrepresenting? The CBO numbers point to the equivalent of 2.3 million jobs. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that is 92 million man hours. I'd also be curious to see how many people are actually currently working JUST TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. I think it's a given that these are not the people who typically invade the ER when one of their kids gets a cough. And honestly, I see few people giving up a slice of their paycheck just to get a subsidy. That isn't the kind of "progress" Americans have become used to. You work to get ahead and stopping a portion of your work to get a government handout is a career killer.

[Tom]

To mostie, the truth is a misrepresentation! :D

[delayjf]

So, the whole "job locked" theory actually plays out the opposite of what they are selling. I'm "job ****ed".

Unless of course your can get paid cash off the books. According to some estimates, that's a 3 billion dollar under ground economy in California, easy to see that number going up.

[JustRalph]

AOL CEO reverses the policy and backs down

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/aol-chief-reverses-changes-to-401k-policy-after-a-week-of-bad-publicity/2014/02/08/0aec4056-911f-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

[classhandicapper]

What planet do these people live on?

They have a vision for how the world "should be" that is in direct conflict with the way the world "actually is". So they can't help but make policy that fails or even worse, does the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish. It's a kind of delusion. It's very difficult to escape that kind of thing because once you have believed something for a long time, it's incredibly difficult to admit you were wrong for years and build a new model of thinking.

I've experienced it in horse racing.

I used to argue that trainer stats are overrated because they are mostly just a function of the stock a trainer is getting and how well they have been spotting their horses. I assumed that almost everything related to the trainer's skill was already reflected in the PPs. So who the trainer was didn't really matter that much. Only trainer changes mattered.

There was a strong element of truth to what I was saying, but staring me right in the face was also an endless supply of evidence that the best trainers get their horses to improve or fire their "A" a higher percentage of the time and that horses trained by lower percentage guys run very disappointing efforts even when the PPs look great more often. That kind of thing also accounted for their success/failure.

It took years for my mind to accept that I was wrong and to adjust my thinking. I kept fighting the evidence to make it fit my model.

[PaceAdvantage]

Charles Krauthammer is not dumb. Paul Ryan is not dumb. Therefore, I can only conclude that they are deliberately misrepresenting here.

No one is saying that poor people no longer have to work because of Obamacare. The people who now may have the option to stop work or reduce hours are those whose family income was sufficient to take care of their other needs. These people were working primarily because they could get health insurance no other way.

If they can now get health insurance which they pay for and if their family income is enough to provide for their other needs, why should they work if they do not have to or want to.

I seriously doubt that a mother who is struggling to put food on the table for her children is going to say, "Oh wonderful, I have Obamacare. I will never have to work again." That is not the person that Jay Carney is referring to.
That is not the person any of us is referring to.I actually agree with mostpost somewhat here. Carney was probably not speaking in terms that Krauthammer and some on this thread suggest.

He wasn't trying to imply that this will make it easier for someone to kick back, not work, and live off the teat of the government.

He was probably referring to the scenario that mostpost points out...where in a family a mother was working primarily for the health insurance coverage or something like that...under Obamacare, perhaps she does not have to work or work as much, which I gather would please many people who place great importance on family values and who see a stay-at-home mom as a positive.

[Clocker]

He wasn't trying to imply that this will make it easier for someone to kick back, not work, and live off the teat of the government.

He was probably referring to the scenario that mostpost points out...where in a family a mother was working primarily for the health insurance coverage or something like that...under Obamacare, perhaps she does not have to work or work as much, which I gather would please many people who place great importance on family values and who see a stay-at-home mom as a positive.

That is what Carney was saying. That is not what the CBO report said. And the CBO report did not say that ObamaCare made it easier to be a welfare sponge.

What the CBO said is that once you got a subsidy from the ObamaCare exchange, any change that resulted in you making more money (getting a job, moving from part time to full time, changing jobs) could result in an over-all decrease in real income when benefits such as health care are counted as income.

Therefore, the CBO said, the ObamaCare subsidy is a disincentive to work, or to work more, because work decreases your income. Another case of what is good (and rational behavior) for the individual is bad for society.

[davew]

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret Thatcher

[LottaKash]

They have a vision for how the world "should be" that is in direct conflict with the way the world "actually is". So they can't help but make policy that fails or even worse, does the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish. It's a kind of delusion.
.


Unless of course, that is what "the plan" was, all along....:eek:


.

[Clocker]

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret Thatcher

Margaret was living in a more moderate era. The problem now is that eventually you run out of future generations' money.

[Tom]

Carney is a paid liar.
Nothing more.

[JustRalph]

Carney is a paid liar.
Nothing more.

http://thefinereport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Carney_Barker_Bob-290x300.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is that Bradley Manning's sister?

[Tom]

Actually, Baghdad Bob had no choice.
This little POS has a choice and he chooses to lie.
He isn't half the man BB was.

[Mike at A+]

Actually, Baghdad Bob had no choice.
This little POS has a choice and he chooses to lie.
He isn't half the man BB was.
Baghdad Bob had a choice - Lie or Die

[Mike at A+]

Carney is a paid liar.
Nothing more.
Al Sharpton would be much better for the job since lying comes naturally to him. He could even hire Tawana Brawley as his secretary.

[newtothegame]

Bottom line for me is that when the govt needs revenue (to supply whatever crazy funding they are currently involved in), they have to get it somehow.
They will do things that tax (business) so that the government can appear to be the good guy. "Taxing those evil corporations".
Reality is, that most of them in government are very smart and they know that cost in a business are eventually passed along to the end user.
Problem solved, ....government still gets the revenue they want and they make the business look like the bad guy in doing so. The government doesn't have to DIRECTLY tax the people thereby saving face!