Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Isn't that what the Soviet Union tried to accomplish? 0% unemployment? How'd that work out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 I could have a lot. Like how the Great Society ended a huge amount of poverty with a certain large population it could also do more in other areas, also. The accomplishments of the Great Society were mostest at best and detrimental at the worst. And what other areas are you referring to? And why does the government that can't get out of its own way need to run this? Why not incentivize private enterprise that has a profit margin it's responsible for handle this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 The accomplishments of the Great Society were mostest at best and detrimental at the worst. And what other areas are you referring to? And why does the government that can't get out of its own way need to run this? Why not incentivize private enterprise that has a profit margin it's responsible for handle this? Oh no, you are wrong. The number of seniors living in poverty has plunged since the 60's. What incentives are you suggesting? Yes, private sectors jobs would be better, I'll give you that, but how do you create them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Oh no, you are wrong. The number of seniors living in poverty has plunged since the 60's. What incentives are you suggesting? Yes, private sectors jobs would be better, I'll give you that, but how do you create them? Reducing corporate taxes and burdensome regulations, and by reducing legislative strain on businesses (things like the ACA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Oh no, you are wrong. The number of seniors living in poverty has plunged since the 60's. What incentives are you suggesting? Yes, private sectors jobs would be better, I'll give you that, but how do you create them? Seniors? I thought we were talking about employing people? Why would private sector jobs be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Reducing corporate taxes and burdensome regulations, and by reducing legislative strain on businesses (things like the ACA). We never had full employment or anything like that when we had super low corporate taxes and almost no regulations. And yes, those would be great things, but regulations are necessary. You want to take away people's health insurance to create jobs? Probably wouldn't work. How big is the health care industry? How big would it be if the government didn't pay for it? 1) Seniors? I thought we were talking about employing people? 2) Why would private sector jobs be better? 1) We were talking about poverty and the Great Society. Childishly obfuscating tactics? 2) Why would you even ask that? Childish run around questions. Run around. Because the government wouldn't have to create jobs then. next question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 We never had full employment or anything like that when we had super low corporate taxes and almost no regulations. And yes, those would be great things, but regulations are necessary. You want to take away people's health insurance to create jobs? Probably wouldn't work. How big is the health care industry? How big would it be if the government didn't pay for it? Why always the hyperbolic language with you? We know it would work because the ACA has led directly to a reduction in the full time work force, as employers have changed their business models to avoid ACA imposed thresholds, and have been reluctant to expand their work force due to those same thresholds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 Why always the hyperbolic language with you? We know it would work because the ACA has led directly to a reduction in the full time work force, as employers have changed their business models to avoid ACA imposed thresholds, and have been reluctant to expand their work force due to those same thresholds. What was the unemployment rate when the ACA became law? And what is it now? Even if you are right it would not account for a giant change. Taking away health care from people is not much of a jobs program. Sorry if you don't like that rhetoric but its the plain facts of your argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Why always the hyperbolic language with you? It's not him. What you read from him gets fed to him so he can randomly copy/paste talking points into a thread. When he's not here, he's usually at new sites adding passages to the comments sections explaining how his girlfriend never thought she could be her own boss, but now she drives a Fiat and has earned $36,000 so far this year only working 3-4 hours a day from the comfort of her mother's basement. He's a multi-tasker, that gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 What was the unemployment rate when the ACA became law? And what is it now? Even if you are right it would not account for a giant change. Taking away health care from people is not much of a jobs program. Sorry if you don't like that rhetoric but its the plain facts of your argument Your argument is that making it more expensive to employ workers doesn't discourage employing workers? Further, heath insurance is not the same thing as health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 2) Why would you even ask that? Childish run around questions. Run around. Because the government wouldn't have to create jobs then. next question? But I thought, according to you anyway, that the government was great at creating jobs. So why is it now better for private sector to create jobs than the public sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 Reducing corporate taxes and burdensome regulations, and by reducing legislative strain on businesses (things like the ACA). How about not raising the min. wage to $15? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 But I thought, according to you anyway, that the government was great at creating jobs. So why is it now better for private sector to create jobs than the public sector? Round and round. Do you just need to chew the cud? 1) Your argument is that making it more expensive to employ workers doesn't discourage employing workers? 2) Further, heath insurance is not the same thing as health care. 1) No 2) What's your point here? Can you expand on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 But I thought, according to you anyway, that the government was great at creating jobs. So why is it now better for private sector to create jobs than the public sector? No, no. You see the private sector would do the hiring, but they'd get the money to do the hiring from the federal government! It's foolproof! Wait. Here's another plan: Take the live tuna fish...and feed them the mayonnaise! Note to self: call Starkist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 2) What's your point here? Can you expand on this? His point is: just because you give people health insurance, does NOT mean they therefore have access to health care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 1) No Yes you are. You said the ACA wasn't impactful on employment. 2) What's your point here? Can you expand on this? As Tom just explained, having health insurance does not mean you have access to health care. You said that taking away people's health care wasn't a job stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 What was the unemployment rate when the ACA became law? And what is it now? So are you saying by this statement, that the ACA has created jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 So are you saying by this statement, that the ACA has created jobs? If he is, a recent Federal Reserve study concludes that he's wrong. "Businesses may increasingly prefer to employ part-time rather than full-time workers for various other reasons. Tax rules generally allow employers to exclude part-time workers from company benefit plans. Rising costs for health benefits therefore may prompt employers to shift toward part-time work to hold labor costs down. This could be intensified by the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that medium-sized and large employers provide health benefits, which is being rolled out in 2015–16 (Valletta and Bengali 2013). Employers in states with a high minimum wage or high wages in general may rely more heavily on part-time work to hold labor costs down. New scheduling technologies also may have reduced the cost for employers to arrange part-time schedules, prompting a general shift toward involuntary part-time work (Greenhouse 2012)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 9, 2015 Share Posted June 9, 2015 What was the unemployment rate when the ACA became law? And what is it now? Even if you are right it would not account for a giant change. Taking away health care from people is not much of a jobs program. Sorry if you don't like that rhetoric but its the plain facts of your argument The unemployment rate of 5.5% is a bunch of horseshit put out by the government. Unemployment in 2009 got up to 10%. So, we've nearly cut it in half but had to not count about 17 million more people that should be included in the workforce in order to do it? I'm giving you two links that should provide you the basis of making an informed opinion. Let's see what you do with them. http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/usadj.htm http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps_charts.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 9, 2015 Author Share Posted June 9, 2015 As Tom just explained, having health insurance does not mean you have access to health care. You said that taking away people's health care wasn't a job stimulus. Oh, so having a doctor's appointment on Tuesday doesn't mean you will she the doctor on Tuesday because he might die before then. Is that what you guys mean? Something like that? So are you saying by this statement, that the ACA has created jobs? If you are talking about jobs in a ship yard or on the west coast, no. Perhaps a few jobs though in areas not related to the field of aerospace in certain states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts