http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/02/cbo_on_obamacare_people_won_t_be_as_desperate_for_work_and_nobody_s_going.html
Imagine Bill Gates decided to do something very eccentric and give $1 million to every man, woman, and child living in Hancock County, Maine. That wouldn’t be a particularly savvy use of his charitable dollars, but he could afford it if he wanted to and still have billions to spare. What would happen next?Well, after a bunch of crazy celebrations it stands to reason that quite a lot of people would quit their jobs. After all, while working can be fulfilling, it can also be a chore.Nobody with a million bucks in her pocket is going to want to work at the Ellsworth Wendy’s orwake up at 4 a.m. to go lobstering. Over time, obviously, the regional economy would adjust. Some people would move away. Some would shift into other jobs.Other folks would move to the newly prosperous Hancock County. But among the 54,000 or so people who live there, employment would take a permanent hit.Whatever you might say about this, though, you certainly wouldn’t say that Gates had wronged the local people or “killed jobs.”And yet a Congressional Budget Office report—concluding that the Affordable Care Act would, in a much less spectacular manner, also reduce demand for working by improving people's standard of living—was widely touted in the press as a devastating blow to the Obama administration. Luke Russert called it an “election year killer,” Chuck Todd said the report “reaffirms GOP talking points,” and Ben White called it “devastating.”
very few bother to fact check what they hear in the media they either believe or dismiss, unfortunately on the right wing most believe and run with it spreading misinfo down the line, articles like this are sorely needed to set the record straight not host that allow it to be repeated followed by "thank you for being here" period.
On Twitter, Jackie Calmes of the New York Times acknowledged that even though “much reporting & GOP response to new CBO report on ACA is inaccurate/false,” it still presents a “problem for Dems: if you’re explainin’, you’re losin’.”
Maybe. Or maybe you’re just explaining. Explaining, for example, that while the CBO did estimate that Obamacare implementation will lead to 2 million–2.5 million fewer full-time equivalent jobs than would otherwise exist, those jobs would be lost on the supply-side rather than the demand-side.
To see the difference, go back to Hancock County. In the wake of the Gates giveaway, employment isn’t falling there because nobody wants to buy lobster or lunch or get the plumbing fixed. If anything, the demand for workers will go up since there are more people in town with cash in their pockets to spend. But employment is going to go down because the supply of people interested in jobs—especially lower-paying or less-pleasant jobs—is going to tumble.
republicans ramble about helping you and helping the economy, if more money in your pocket is the fastest way to recover why haven't they signed Pres.'s jobs act, stopped taking away the social nets and food stamps, health care refusal, unemployment extension,
all the above would change the way some view them and boost the economy they won't because they see it as he would get the credit because it's under his watch,
the same as those homemade scandals were suppose to get the opposite effect but still under his watch and his fault by proxy, they are the firewalls in our life not Pres. or his agenda. recognize
