obamaKare: the destruction begins
-
Manhattan Buckeyegut;1577306 wrote:The right types of people can be (which is a very difficult thing to achieve with policy). For example, one effect of the Great Recession is people who would normally have retired have had to keep working to build their savings back up. That lack of promotional opportunities for younger workers trickles all the way down. If you're not at full employment, people voluntarily reducing hours isn't a bad thing.
But unless you are at full employment, one person reducing their hours creates opportunity for additional hours for someone else...unless businesses are actually eliminating those jobs/hours. So the hours worked really shouldn't drop. And like I said, this just doesn't pass the smell test because the low wage workers the CBO is talking about here mostly didn't have employer provided insurance nor were they purchasing private policies.
This goes back to the "what if a Republican said it?" If during W's term he initiated a program that the CBO reported would result in this reduction of employment he'd be vilified by the Left and their bootlicking mainstream media and likely impeached. I can't imagine to many GOP/Libertarians defending the program.
But now we have the bootlickers acting in the opposite manner. Obama has made his own supporters look even dumber than I thought they did in the '12 election. -
gut
The giant red flag is the claim hours worked decreases due to reduced labor participation, yet despite the assumed tight labor market wages DECREASE 1%. Either excess labor would absorb those hours, or a labor shortage would lead to increased wages.Manhattan Buckeye;1577314 wrote:This goes back to the "what if a Republican said it?" If during W's term he initiated a program that the CBO reported would result in this reduction of employment he'd be vilified by the Left and their bootlicking mainstream media and likely impeached. I can't imagine to many GOP/Libertarians defending the program.
My suspicion is the CBO has danced around the real implication: People reduce hours because they can't afford not to (because of subsidies they have huge marginal tax rates), and/or due to higher insurance costs and Obamakare taxes, businesses will demand less labor or pay lower wages to offset higher comp (which continues to be driven by healthcare, but now not your healthcare but that of people who aren't working or working less). -
QuakerOatsUp is down
Right is left
Black is white
The country is barely recognizable after just 5 years of this regime. -
BoatShoes
Right but this begs the question, why are we not at full employment? It is the age of diminished expectations when we are excited about people leaving the work force to provide opportunities for others. I agree that you'd much rather have "work sharing" with some folks cutting hours rather than one fully employed and another totally unemployed but the overarching idea is we should be at full employment. And, there is always a tax cut or spending increase that is large enough to generate full employment.gut;1577306 wrote:The right types of people can be (which is a very difficult thing to achieve with policy). For example, one effect of the Great Recession is people who would normally have retired have had to keep working to build their savings back up. That lack of promotional opportunities for younger workers trickles all the way down. If you're not at full employment, people voluntarily reducing hours isn't a bad thing.
But unless you are at full employment, one person reducing their hours creates opportunity for additional hours for someone else...unless businesses are actually eliminating those jobs/hours. So the hours worked really shouldn't drop. And like I said, this just doesn't pass the smell test because the low wage workers the CBO is talking about here mostly didn't have employer provided insurance nor were they purchasing private policies. -
gut
Only according to a bastardized version of Keynesian economics (read: based on no theory at all) and certainly not according to classic theory. It's easily observable to see business do hoard cash for future tough times and in anticipation of future tax increases. And because you can't drastically increase spending into perpetuity, either you will have a hard landing or an increase in taxes.BoatShoes;1577358 wrote:And, there is always a tax cut or spending increase that is large enough to generate full employment.
Also, interest rates and taxes are only part of the investment equation, and one that is typically not based on short-term horizons.
The fed has pumped $3T into the markets - I think that is an extraordinarily large stimulus that contributed an extraordinarily little amount to growth. You can't spend your way to prosperity - that is inherently obvious even if one ignores all the supporting evidence in this "recovery".
The business climate, the massive debts/deficits, Obamakare....I know you think all that is BS, but if you were actually out there talking to companies and executives you would know it is simply fact, no matter how much you want that not to be the case. -
BoatShoes
It's actually tight money in comparison to the demand for money. Nevertheless, QEIII + Forward Guidance offset the tax raises and the sequester. The heirs to Milton Friedman proved me wrong. Monetary policy is way more powerful than I thought it was.gut;1577363 wrote:Only according to a bastardized version of Keynesian economics (read: based on no theory at all) and certainly not according to classic theory. It's easily observable to see business do hoard cash for future tough times and in anticipation of future tax increases. And because you can't drastically increase spending into perpetuity, either you will have a hard landing or an increase in taxes.
Also, interest rates and taxes are only part of the investment equation, and one that is typically not based on short-term horizons.
The fed has pumped $3T into the markets - I think that is an extraordinarily large stimulus that contributed an extraordinarily little amount to growth. You can't spend your way to prosperity - that is inherently obvious even if one ignores all the supporting evidence in this "recovery".
The business climate, the massive debts/deficits, Obamakare....I know you think all that is BS, but if you were actually out there talking to companies and executives you would know it is simply fact, no matter how much you want that not to be the case. -
gut
I disagree. SF Fed(?) had a paper that estimated the impact of QE3 was only 20bps.BoatShoes;1577446 wrote:It's actually tight money in comparison to the demand for money. Nevertheless, QEIII + Forward Guidance offset the tax raises and the sequester. The heirs to Milton Friedman proved me wrong. Monetary policy is way more powerful than I thought it was.
Here's a case where I agree with you that this money might have been better spent just cutting every taxpayer a check. But I think the lesson here is beyond a certain point you are just burning money, almost literally. There are always negative externalities, and in this case savers (particularly retirees on fixed incomes) are getting pummeled. -
QuakerOats
-
QuakerOatshttp://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/article.aspx?post=5eafa9ec-ae32-4082-b1df-690c926e4f2b
and the horror stories continue ................ -
QuakerOatsToday's links from Drudge Report:
MAKING IT UP AS HE GOES: EMPLOYER MANDATE DELAYED AGAIN...
Obama Rewrites Obamacare...
BOEHNER: Exempts Corporations, Not Families...
Directly Violates Text of Affordable Care Act...
FOURNIER: Nearing 'impossible' to defend...
Krauthammer: 'This is stuff you do in banana republic'...
Doctors 'Astonished' To Find Themselves Listed On Obamacare Exchange...
FIT: Gym members forced to pay new tax...
'Avalanche' of Regs Still to Come...
OBAMA: 'I Can Do Whatever I Want'...
-
QuakerOatshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-what-cbo-said-many-american-workers-would-have-freedom
democrats now openly say it is good to not have to work.
Is there anyone left in this country who doesn't believe the marxists have hijacked the democrat party? It is like an IED is being detonated every ten minutes with these radicals, wiping out our country one day at a time.
God save the republic. -
jmogOf course the liberals are going to say people not working is a good thing, since if they are not working then they are on the public teat, and those on the public teat overtime become democrat voters right?
-
Dr Winston O'Boogie
The conservative news service takes this entirely out of context. The CBO study that pointed out that Obamacare would result in less hours worked by some meant the following: Since access to healthcare is not entirely dependent on holding a fulltime job, those who are later in their careers (maybe at or near retirement) or those who would like to pursue an entreprenural opportunity or stay home with a child more may scale back hours to part time. That is not the same as right wing suggestion that it will drive people into welfare.QuakerOats;1579732 wrote:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/schumer-what-cbo-said-many-american-workers-would-have-freedom
democrats now openly say it is good to not have to work.
Is there anyone left in this country who doesn't believe the marxists have hijacked the democrat party? It is like an IED is being detonated every ten minutes with these radicals, wiping out our country one day at a time.
God save the republic.
Obamacare has hardly started and you guys want to point out every mistake made as evidence of its failure. I believe time will show it to be a success even if it is difficult going at first. The criticisms come from the party that has done absolutely nothing to help the skyrocketing healthcare costs in this country. Primarily because it is the beneficiary of the largess from those costs.
Corporations will be the ultimate downfall of this country, not liberal politicians. -
QuakerOats^^^ Bizarre commentary. How, with a straight face, could you possibly call "a success" a program that has already caused MASSIVE new cost increases; MASSIVE new increases in deductibles, forces people to lose their doctor, is proving to be a job killer, and will still leave over 30 million people uninsured (completely defying its original stated intent).
Incredible.
No wonder obama got elected: there are apparently many fools and marxists among us. -
gutActually the CBO clarified its comments (while dodging why the labor force doesn't absorb those hours - because those jobs will actually be eliminated)...basically said incentives are going to FORCE some to work less hours.
You want to talk about taking it out of context, then how about the Democrats saying this is a good thing with people "choosing" to work less hours?
I mean, let me see if I understand this. People who were poor and struggling to get by, and didn't even have healthcare...You give them free healthcare, so now they are so well-off they are going to work less? -
BoatShoes
I did not see this but in any event I would suspect that it is wrong. Cleveland Fed's president was also saying that Monetary Policy can't offset X level of Fiscal Contraction just like I was but I think the Milton Friedman people have persuaded me that I was wrong. Consider this analysis by Michael Darda, Chief Economist at MKM Capital.gut;1578075 wrote:I disagree. SF Fed(?) had a paper that estimated the impact of QE3 was only 20bps.
https://mkm.bluematrix.com/sellside/EmailDocViewer?encrypt=dc75fbf9-85bf-456c-9de2-99b824266a10&mime=pdf&co=Mkm&[email protected]&source=mail
Overall, GDP grew at 1.9% in 2013 v. 2.8% in 2012 in the face of Sequester and Fiscal Cliff but I expected worse and did not believe Milton Friedman's followers that I talk to elsewhere but I think they're right. Monetary Policy successfully offset some of the worst of the contractionary fiscal policy even when it appeared that Monetary Policy had hit its wits end.Despite a two-year contraction in nominal federal outlays for the first time in more than five decades and a raft of tax hikes starting in early 2013, job gains are running slightly ahead of the 2012 pace. Non-farm payrolls (+203K in November and 200K in October) have averaged 189K during the first 11 months of 2013, ahead of the 179K 11-month average in November 2012 and the 170K average for November 2011. Over the last 12 months, non-farm payrolls have averaged 191K, also above the 12-month averages for the last three years. Indeed, year-to-year gains for overall payrolls and private sector jobs have been very steady despite the most intense fiscal consolidation since the Korean War demobilization.Many observers late last year were of the mindset that the fiscal cliff and/or sequester would either throw the U.S. economy back into recession, or slow it materially. It has done neither because, in our view, the Fed has offset it. Although monetary policy has beenfar from perfect, allowing the financialsystem to crash in 2009 (instead of doing QE1), allowing low inflation to morph into deflation in 2010 (instead of initiating QE2) and allowing the full force of the sequester/tax hikes to hit in 2013 (rather than rolling out QE3) do not seem like particularly desirable outcomes. The Fed has managed much better than the ECB and that is the proper counterfactual.
I was wrong. We can go ahead and raise taxes and cut spending and the FED can still ensure that we don't fall off the wagon. -
QuakerOats"...contractionary fiscal policy..." comical
Four years from '05 - '08 we spent $10.83 trillion.
Four years from '09 - '12 we spent $14.11 trillion.
Thus, we increased spending 30% (at a time when inflation was nil), and we increased spending in absolute terms by $3.3 trillion.
Only a rabid liberal could identify these facts as "contractionary". -
BoatShoesQuakerOats;1580340 wrote:"...contractionary fiscal policy..." comical
Four years from '05 - '08 we spent $10.83 trillion.
Four years from '09 - '12 we spent $14.11 trillion.
Thus, we increased spending 30% (at a time when inflation was nil), and we increased spending in absolute terms by $3.3 trillion.
Only a rabid liberal could identify these facts as "contractionary".
^^^This one is federal government tax receipts as a percentage of GDP.
The man I quoted above gets paid to be right. He's not just a government lackey. We had huge tax raises and huge spending cuts and yet the Federal Reserve was able to make sure the economy still grew in the face of all that with QEIII and Forward Guidance. I was wrong. Monetary Policy can still be effective with unconventional tools even in the face of deficit hysteria and interest rates at zero. -
gut
Yeah, accept this as close as Boatshoes is going to come to admitting the folly of his ways.QuakerOats;1580340 wrote:"...contractionary fiscal policy..." comical
HUGE tax increases and HUGE spending cuts...contractionary policy....absolutely hysterical. In typical liberal fashion (and much like Obama) he grossly distorts reality to somehow make subpar growth look like an accomplishment.
Then again, when your solution is to spend your way to prosperity then you can make the case than anything short of unlimited govt spending is contractionary. A very conveniently contrived argument he's made here. -
gut
Why? Because it completely flies in the face of what you want to believe about extraordinary stimulus? It's nothing short of remarkable for the Fed to come out and admit its massive $4T "stimulus" did little more than inflate market asset prices (in layman's terms, putting powder back into the next recession bomb).BoatShoes;1580324 wrote:I did not see this but in any event I would suspect that it is wrong.
Take a step back for once and look honestly and objectively at the disappointing and subpar recovery....then ask yourself where the $4T in QE went. -
QuakerOatsIt is the new normal, gut:
jobs are bad / free time is good
personal responsibility is bad / government dependency is good
capitalism is bad / marxism is good
fiscal restraint is bad / government debt at 110% of GDP is good
individual liberty is bad / collectivism is good
using our God-given resources is bad / using the EPA as the weapon of choice to kill economic freedom is good
We have elected the enemy -
Dr Winston O'Boogie
I'm not a Marxist. My wife calls me a fool, but that's another story. The ballooning costs of health care are unchecked in the system we had. It's like the selling candy at the movies. Forcing the distribution of economics along the entire chain instead of the highly inefficient places where it was will not raise costs in the long run. Of course we're 6 weeks in and cannot properly judge anything at this point.QuakerOats;1579791 wrote:^^^ Bizarre commentary. How, with a straight face, could you possibly call "a success" a program that has already caused MASSIVE new cost increases; MASSIVE new increases in deductibles, forces people to lose their doctor, is proving to be a job killer, and will still leave over 30 million people uninsured (completely defying its original stated intent).
Incredible.
No wonder obama got elected: there are apparently many fools and marxists among us.
Name calling. Typical. -
gutThe insurance companies are not the source of rising costs, that's why Obamakare is destined to be nothing more than a black hole of new entitlements (and possibly insurance company bailouts).
The people really making bank off of healthcare are Pharma, Medical Devices and the malpractice lawyers. Make no mistake - squeezing margins on the first two in a country where they make maybe 35% of their global profits is going to hurt quality GLOBALLY. That is, unless you subsidize the R&D (which will end-up costing us more in the long-run). -
BoatShoes
No, because I've been persuaded by the new monetarists on the ability of monetary policy to offset contractionary fiscal policy. My particular keynesian view was wrong. Monetary Policy can work too even at the zero bound.gut;1580390 wrote:Why? Because it completely flies in the face of what you want to believe about extraordinary stimulus? It's nothing short of remarkable for the Fed to come out and admit its massive $4T "stimulus" did little more than inflate market asset prices (in layman's terms, putting powder back into the next recession bomb).
Take a step back for once and look honestly and objectively at the disappointing and subpar recovery....then ask yourself where the $4T in QE went.
Alternative channels of monetary policy like the asset price channel are basically the only choices when rates are already as low as they are. The only alternative is collapse of GDP like in Europe when you do fiscal austerity and inadequate monetary stimulus.
For example, this was the "Market Monetarists" Graph of the Year:
You might consider looking into what they have to say. Most of them are basically libertarians politically but monetarists on macroeconomic stabilization like Milton Friedman.
For instance, you might read Scott Sumner's piece in National Affairs: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed
But anyway, both the United States and Europe engaged in Fiscal Consolidation but the United States used expansionary monetary policy and that is what has allowed us to do better than the folks across the pond.
I still think Fiscal Policy like a large deficit-causing tax cut would be better but at least we know a bunch of deficit hawks in Congress won't ruin us so long as we have monetary doves at the FED. But, if we get a Deficit Hawk AND a Monetary Hawk like Rand Paul we're screwed.