Congressional Budget Office On Obama-Care

[Robo]

The Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare, became law almost four years ago. It became operational last Oct. 1. Yesterday, Feb. 4, 2014, the ACA may well have been dealt its death blow.


The Congressional Budget Office released a major study of the government’s budget and its effect on the overall economy over the next 10 years. In dull bureaucratic language, it delivers a devastating analysis of the inefficiencies, ineffectualities and problematic social costs of ObamaCare.

The one-two punch: Virtually as many Americans will lack health coverage in 10 years as before the law was passed — but 2 million fewer will be working than if the law hadn’t passed.
One killer detail comes on Page 111, where the report projects: “As a result of the ACA, between 6 million and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of the ACA.”

More at http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/

And just think the Congressional Budget Office is notorious for underestimating the cost of everything.

Congratulations Neo-Commies!!!!!

 

[Truth Detector]

The sad reality is that we, the sheeple, elected these Democrat dunces who were then able to pass this abomination along straight party lines built on lies.

You get what you vote for. The founders are most certainly spinning in their graves with the accurate prediction that the downfall of the Republic would not come from outside, but from within through ignorance.

 

[Robo]

The sad reality is that we, the sheeple, elected these Democrat dunces who were then able to pass this abomination along straight party lines built on lies.

You get what you vote for. The founders are most certainly spinning in their graves with the accurate prediction that the downfall of the Republic would not come from outside, but from within through ignorance.

Not just that, but most of the fucking idiot Democrats in Congress voted for the congressional RINO's unconstitutional resolution that gave the proxy power solely assigned to the Congress to declare war to G. W. Bush to declare war on Iraq also based on fucking lies. You get what you vote for, huh?

 

[Truth Detector]

Not just that, but most of the fucking idiot Democrats in Congress voted for the congressional RINO's unconstitutional resolution that gave the proxy power solely assigned to the Congress to declare war to G. W. Bush to declare war on Iraq also based on fucking lies, huh?

That might be true; but you characterization of the Joint Resolution as being unconstitutional is incorrect. No one declared war on Iraq; it was a UN enforcement and Congress reserves that power and holds the purse strings.

They weren't based on lies, but on intelligence many thought were accurate and of which only constituted less than a fourth of the words containing justification of that enforcement in the Joint Resolution. You should read it sometime.

Of course there are some who are clueless about things like fighting wars, the Constitution, what constitutes intelligence and some even think that wars are fought based on sound budgeting and surpluses.

Go figure?

 

[Damocles]

Six to seven million who will have to find the money to directly purchase their health care because of this "awesome" piece of sh*... I mean, legislation.

Thankfully, when a republican is elected President he won't need to go to Congress to repeal the law, Obama has already set the precedent that a simple Executive order directing insurance companies to ignore the law and the IRS not to impose the restrictions is all you need. Thanks to Obama the Executive now has a set precedent with the power to unilaterally change tax code without regard to the constitutional authority that resides with Congress.

 

[Robo]

That might be true; but you characterization of the Joint Resolution as being unconstitutional is incorrect. No one declared war on Iraq; it was a UN enforcement and Congress reserves that power and holds the purse strings.

Please instruct me where I can find in my Constitution a power of ”UN Enforcement” granted to a Congress to deliver up a “resolution” overriding the sole authority and constitutional duty of Congress to Declare All Wars or a constitutional article or Amendment that gives the Presidency a power to enforce UN resolutions. I can’t seem to find any of that fucking shit in my copy of the Constitution.

They weren't based on lies, but on intelligence many thought were accurate and of which only constituted less than a fourth of the words containing justification of that enforcement in the Joint Resolution. You should read it sometime.

“Saddam has WMD and I know where it’s at” [DICK FUCKING CHENEY)

Of course there are some who are clueless about things like fighting wars, the Constitution, what constitutes intelligence and some even think that wars are fought based on sound budgeting and surpluses.

Go figure?

War is a fucking racket Numb-Nuts! Too fucking bad they don’t send your war- mongering ass to fight them all, huh Dip-Shit?

 

[Truth Detector]

Please instruct me where I can find in my Constitution a power of ”UN Enforcement” granted to a Congress to deliver up a “resolution” overriding the sole authority and constitutional duty of Congress to Declare All Wars or a constitutional article or Amendment that gives the Presidency a power to enforce UN resolutions. I can’t seem to find any of that fucking shit in my copy of the Constitution.

What an absurd claim; please show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress cannot make laws or the President cannot make treaties that are approved by the Congress. How old are you?

Sometimes you sound patently dumb. Read; become informed:

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
Our analysis falls into four parts. First, we examine the Constitution's text and structure. We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.
Our review establishes that all three branches of the Federal Government - Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary - agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including the ability to deter future attacks.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

“Saddam has WMD and I know where it’s at” [DICK FUCKING CHENEY)

Yet he was not alone and thought the same thing these people believed:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We did not heavy the intelligence agencies. I reject [claims] that we took the country to war based on a lie. If I had my time again I would take the same decision."
--John Howard Australian Prime Minister July 2004

April 10, 2002 – House of Commons
“For the moment, let me say this: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also.”

September 24, 2002 – House of Commons
“The Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

Tony Blair

Are these people all lying?

War is a fucking racket Numb-Nuts!

No it isn’t shit-for-brains. It is serious business that is never entered into lightly. But dunces like you who are armchair Constitutionalists construct moronic strawmen so that you can tear them down thinking you have even the slightest clue of what is being debated; but you don’t.

I find comments like yours to be repugnant and reprehensible claiming that Bush, Blair, Cheney or the myriad other leaders who sent their men and women into harm’s way did so lightly and were callous about their deaths. That is so stupid as to not even be worthy of comment or response.

But stupid people do and say really stupid things.

Too fucking bad they don’t send your war- mongering ass to fight them all, huh Dip-Shit?

Now you sound as stupid as evince; yay you!

Dunce.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Six to seven million who will have to find the money to directly purchase their health care because of this "awesome" piece of sh*... I mean, legislation.

Thankfully, when a republican is elected President he won't need to go to Congress to repeal the law, Obama has already set the precedent that a simple Executive order directing insurance companies to ignore the law and the IRS not to impose the restrictions is all you need. Thanks to Obama the Executive now has a set precedent with the power to unilaterally change tax code without regard to the constitutional authority that resides with Congress.

Except no GOP president would have the balls to do that.

 

[zappasguitar]

The Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare, became law almost four years ago. It became operational last Oct. 1. Yesterday, Feb. 4, 2014, the ACA may well have been dealt its death blow.


The Congressional Budget Office released a major study of the government’s budget and its effect on the overall economy over the next 10 years. In dull bureaucratic language, it delivers a devastating analysis of the inefficiencies, ineffectualities and problematic social costs of ObamaCare.

The one-two punch: Virtually as many Americans will lack health coverage in 10 years as before the law was passed — but 2 million fewer will be working than if the law hadn’t passed.
One killer detail comes on Page 111, where the report projects: “As a result of the ACA, between 6 million and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of the ACA.”

More at http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/

And just think the Congressional Budget Office is notorious for underestimating the cost of everything.

Congratulations Neo-Commies!!!!!

Sorry, but the guy who wrote the report you're citing says you are wrong...

Well, lookie. At the same hearing in which Rep. Paul Ryan was forced to acknowledge that no, the CBO report didn't say that Obamacare would kill 2 million jobs, the flip-side of 2 million workers free to quit their jobs was explored. And guess what? It actually turns out that Obamacare is going to reduce unemployment, as CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf reiterates with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in that video clip. Greg Sargent has more:

On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will "boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."

"When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?" Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

"Yes, that's right," Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks "spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

That's considering the increased buying power lower-income folks are going to have now that they don't have to spend so much on health care. It's not considering the jobs that will be opening up as people choose to leave them to pursue other opportunities. It's not counting the potential jobs created by people leaving those jobs to start their own businesses. Even Republicans love those people, right? Republicans especially love those people, unless of course those people are foregoing the "dignity of work" to become moochers reliant on tax credits to help them pay for health insurance.

Here's the truth: Obamacare isn't a jobs killer. It's a jobs creator. The Republicans' dirty little secret is that this is something they've known all along; it's one of the reasons they've fought so hard to kill the law. It's one of the reason so many Republican governors and legislatures have refused participate. Economic sabotage has been one of the GOP's primary tactics against President Obama, and Obamacare opposition has been part and parcel of that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...t-kill-jobs-it-ll-create-them?detail=facebook

 

[MAGA MAN]

On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will "boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."

LOL, that's the same argument Pelosi tried to make that increasing unemployment payments would boost the economy. LOL

 

[Dantès]

The Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare, became law almost four years ago. It became operational last Oct. 1. Yesterday, Feb. 4, 2014, the ACA may well have been dealt its death blow.


The Congressional Budget Office released a major study of the government’s budget and its effect on the overall economy over the next 10 years. In dull bureaucratic language, it delivers a devastating analysis of the inefficiencies, ineffectualities and problematic social costs of ObamaCare.

The one-two punch: Virtually as many Americans will lack health coverage in 10 years as before the law was passed — but 2 million fewer will be working than if the law hadn’t passed.
One killer detail comes on Page 111, where the report projects: “As a result of the ACA, between 6 million and 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance coverage each year from 2016 through 2024 than would be the case in the absence of the ACA.”

More at http://nypost.com/2014/02/05/congressional-budget-office-sends-death-blow-to-obamacare/

And just think the Congressional Budget Office is notorious for underestimating the cost of everything.

Congratulations Neo-Commies!!!!!

So what does the number of people working have to do with the costs which the CBO has traditionally underestimated? Please be as specific as crippled little mind will allow.

 

[Big Money]

 

[Robo]

What an absurd claim; please show me where in the Constitution it says that Congress cannot make laws or the President cannot make treaties that are approved by the Congress. How old are you?

Sometimes you sound patently dumb. Read; become informed:

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
September 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
You have asked for our opinion as to the scope of the President's authority to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We conclude that the President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
Our analysis falls into four parts. First, we examine the Constitution's text and structure. We conclude that the Constitution vests the President with the plenary authority, as Commander in Chief and the sole organ of the Nation in its foreign relations, to use military force abroad - especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States. Second, we confirm that conclusion by reviewing the executive and judicial statements and decisions interpreting the Constitution and the President's powers under it. Third, we analyze the relevant practice of the United States, including recent history, that supports the view that the President has the authority to deploy military force in response to emergency conditions such as those created by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Finally, we discuss congressional enactments that, in our view, acknowledge the President's plenary authority to use force to respond to the terrorist attack on the United States.
Our review establishes that all three branches of the Federal Government - Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary - agree that the President has broad authority to use military force abroad, including the ability to deter future attacks.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

For your information Numb-Nuts, The War Powers Act is Unconstitutional. There’s absolutely NO authority granted by the Constitution for the Congress to proxy the authority and duty of the Congress to any Executive power or any other power. The appropriate, constitutional and legal action for such legislative authority as a War Powers Act can ONLY become valid constitutional law by Amendment to our Constitution.

Also your postings of opinions and memorandums bandied about by partisan ideologues and other crooked bastards in Washington D. C. doesn’t prove a fucking thing except that you’re totally clueless about correct constitutional decorum.

Thirdly for your education, The Congress and the President and the Judiciary cannot legally and constitutionally make any law, confirm any action or proxy any authority or duty elsewhere in the government that violates any part of the Constitution or goes beyond the powers enumerated for each body of government. Any sane and logical folk recognizes to do so simply renders the entire Constitution worthless and makes it the equivalent of toilet paper. Of Course that leaves you out Goober there’s nary a fucking sane or logical bone in your fucking pea-brained head.

 

[Robo]

Yet he was not alone and thought the same thing these people believed:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We did not heavy the intelligence agencies. I reject [claims] that we took the country to war based on a lie. If I had my time again I would take the same decision."
--John Howard Australian Prime Minister July 2004

April 10, 2002 – House of Commons
“For the moment, let me say this: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked. He is a threat to his own people and to the region and, if allowed to develop these weapons, a threat to us also.”

September 24, 2002 – House of Commons
“The Joint Intelligence Committee concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

Tony Blair

Are these people all lying?

How many WMDs were found in Iraq Goober? If Cheney knew where they were as the bastard claimed, why did he keep their location a fucking secret?

What part of any of your pathetic excuses above provides constitutional authority to G. W. Bush to start a fucking war with Iraq?

“The Congress shall have the power……..to declare war.…..” (Article One, Section Eight, United States Constitution)

 

[evince]

Six to seven million who will have to find the money to directly purchase their health care because of this "awesome" piece of sh*... I mean, legislation.

Thankfully, when a republican is elected President he won't need to go to Congress to repeal the law, Obama has already set the precedent that a simple Executive order directing insurance companies to ignore the law and the IRS not to impose the restrictions is all you need. Thanks to Obama the Executive now has a set precedent with the power to unilaterally change tax code without regard to the constitutional authority that resides with Congress.

how can you read this CBO report and think these lies?

Oh you didn't read it did you?

you relied on right wing media to read it for you?



you just got had by propaganda.


damo you really are not who I have thought you were all these years

 

[Robo]

No it isn’t shit-for-brains. It is serious business that is never entered into lightly. But dunces like you who are armchair Constitutionalists construct moronic strawmen so that you can tear them down thinking you have even the slightest clue of what is being debated; but you don’t.

Well Goober I’ve presented article, section and amendment throughout my arguments on this forum and thus far all I receive in return argument from both right and left is biased ideological opinions without rational or qualified evidence of anything except irrational opinion and clueless babbling.

I repeat, “WAR IS A FUCKING RACKET!” contrived by sons-of-bitches seeking world power, property claimed by others, resources claimed by others like OIL or the quest for personal vendetta.

G. W. Bush dreamed wildly of settling a personal vendetta with Saddam because Saddam tried to have his father G. H. W. Bush assassinated and he, (G. W. bush), was instigated endlessly by Dick Fucking Cheney to go to war with Iraq for access to Iraqi OIL.

Another fucking lie told by Cheney, (Bush’s mouth piece), was that “Iraqi Oil would pay for the Iraq war.” How’s that been working out for us Goober?

 

[Althea]

how can you read this CBO report and think these lies?

Oh you didn't read it did you?

you relied on right wing media to read it for you?



you just got had by propaganda.


damo you really are not who I have thought you were all these years

Isn't it cute when they don't quite understand what they read, but they rush here to post?

They give the thread an inflammatory title, but when they offer their 'smoking gun', it makes them look like idiots.

Fish in a barrel, as it were.

 

[Robo]

I find comments like yours to be repugnant and reprehensible claiming that Bush, Blair, Cheney or the myriad other leaders who sent their men and women into harm’s way did so lightly and were callous about their deaths. That is so stupid as to not even be worthy of comment or response.



But stupid people do and say really stupid things. [/size]



Now you sound as stupid as evince; yay you!

Dunce.

And I should give a flying fuck about what you find about me, WHY?????

If the Iraq war was such a just cause Goober then why didn’t Bush ask the Congress for a constitutional DECLARATION for war with Iraq as the Constitution demands?

If you believe the war was so justified, why is the end result Iran actually winning that war since they’re now the major influence in Iraq and now Iraq is highly infiltrated by Al-Queda who dared not even enter Iraq while Saddam was in control because they knew he would kill their entire families and run them through a fucking wood chipper?

And Goober when the fuck are you gonna answer the question about where we can find in our Constitution the authority or mandate for our armed forces to be the United Nations strong arm and enforcer and a power of any President to direct our military as such? Oh! That’s right, huh that fucking shit ain’t in our Constitution, right Numb-Nuts?????

"Truth Detector" your ass!!!!! You wouldn't know the fucking truth if you fell over it.

 

[Dantès]

Six to seven million who will have to find the money to directly purchase their health care because of this "awesome" piece of sh*... I mean, legislation.

Thankfully, when a republican is elected President he won't need to go to Congress to repeal the law, Obama has already set the precedent that a simple Executive order directing insurance companies to ignore the law and the IRS not to impose the restrictions is all you need. Thanks to Obama the Executive now has a set precedent with the power to unilaterally change tax code without regard to the constitutional authority that resides with Congress.

Yes it is too bad that it was this crappy business proposed and proffered bill or 45 million without any health insurance at all! But I didn't hear any righites here whining about the plight of the 45 million before this shitty piece of legislation was thrust upon us. Why was that? The most salient and sarcastic suggestion I heard was the health care version of "Let them eat cake:" "Let them go the emergency room."

 

[Robo]

Sorry, but the guy who wrote the report you're citing says you are wrong...

Well, lookie. At the same hearing in which Rep. Paul Ryan was forced to acknowledge that no, the CBO report didn't say that Obamacare would kill 2 million jobs, the flip-side of 2 million workers free to quit their jobs was explored. And guess what? It actually turns out that Obamacare is going to reduce unemployment, as CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf reiterates with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) in that video clip. Greg Sargent has more:

On page 124, the report estimates that the ACA will "boost overall demand for goods and services over the next few years because the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods and services." This, the report says, "will in turn boost demand for labor over the next few years."

"When you boost demand for labor in this kind of economy, you actually reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work, right?" Van Hollen asked Elmendorf.

"Yes, that's right," Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf added that the factor Van Hollen had identified was something CBO thinks "spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years."

That's considering the increased buying power lower-income folks are going to have now that they don't have to spend so much on health care. It's not considering the jobs that will be opening up as people choose to leave them to pursue other opportunities. It's not counting the potential jobs created by people leaving those jobs to start their own businesses. Even Republicans love those people, right? Republicans especially love those people, unless of course those people are foregoing the "dignity of work" to become moochers reliant on tax credits to help them pay for health insurance.

Here's the truth: Obamacare isn't a jobs killer. It's a jobs creator. The Republicans' dirty little secret is that this is something they've known all along; it's one of the reasons they've fought so hard to kill the law. It's one of the reason so many Republican governors and legislatures have refused participate. Economic sabotage has been one of the GOP's primary tactics against President Obama, and Obamacare opposition has been part and parcel of that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...t-kill-jobs-it-ll-create-them?detail=facebook

I don’t know about you Goober, but I watched most of the congressional hearings on the ACA and jobs and originally the CBO had estimated that 800.000 jobs would be lost relative to the ”UN”-ACA but that was revised in the latest hearing by none other than Director Doug Elmendorf t himself to around 2.5 million jobs lost over the next ten years relative to Obama-Care.

Of course y’all fucking lefties are spinning that event as actually being a good thing for America because BIG government will have reduced all incentive for poorer folks to have to work and thereby lose their ”Medicaid.” and actually get a job and pay for their own medical insurance instead of sucking the government tit on highly taxpayer subsidized Medicaid. Of course that’s simply an admission by the left that at least 2,5 million more folks will be placed by BIG government on Medicaid. Y’all fucking idiots call that “FREEDOM” to not work, encouraged and instituted by your friendly BIG fucking government.