About This Blog
My blog bud King, a bit rusty from his time away from his blog, put up a rant on Monday complaining about the American safety net, complete with some vague ramblings about a uniquely American "work ethic" which King accused Obama and the Democrats of discouraging.
Here's King doing his best Sean Hannity impersonation.....
....when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that Obamacare "creates a disincentive for people to work", which would result in the loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in reduced work hours, the Republicans viewed that as a bad thing,....
Here, King combines two distinct and separate commentaries by CBO head Doug Elmendorf.....and tries to make them out as one and the same. Elmendorf did say there would be some recipients of the Medicaid expansion who could be disincentivized to earn more money if doing so would lift their incomes above 138% of the poverty level, thus disqualifying them from health coverage under the Medicaid expansion.
But "the loss of the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs" part of Elmendorf's CBO report is not attributed to those poor workers near the 138% of poverty level. King attempted to merge or equate the two....and that is disingenuous. The 2.5 million estimated jobs over the next 7-10 years are jobs that American workers would have left already except for the much needed healthcare benefits those hated jobs included. Would King prefer that those folks stay chaimed to their hated jobs?
After the CBO report came out.....as usual....the extremist right, as they have done with Benghazi and the IRS, flooded the winger zone with distortions of that report. Why? Because Obamacare. They hate it. So much misinformation poured like sewage out of the right wing media machine in the wake of the CBO report being released that Elmendorf had to issue a clarification.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor.”
Now, even the clarification by Elmendorf is being batted around by people like King as evidence that folks who are in favor of helping the vulnerable, the poor, the jobless...the less fortunate....are encouraging those Americans to not work. Thus, Obama and the Democrats are encouraging a bigger welfare state by discouraging people from working. All this, so that Democrats can keep their "we love Santa" voters voting Democratic.
You may recognize this hoot as a variation of Mitt Romney's 47%. You would not be mistaken if you did.
The "welfare state" rolls have expanded in recent years not because Obama has exponentially expanded those rolls....but because Banksters blew up the national economy like at no other time since the 1930's. You want to blame someone for exploded food stamp enrollments? Blame the Bankster bastards on Wall Street. You want to complain and whine about there not being enough Americans working? Then bring your bitching, whining and complaining and lay it at the feet of the unindicted criminals in the top 1% whose greed alone removed $7 trillion from the national economy, throwing millions out of jobs in the process.
Conservatives and libertarians are blaming the victims of the Banksters. It reminds of the time during Katrina when conservative wankers criticized those unable to leave New Orleans.
Now allow me to be painfully candid about this work thing. We all have incentives in our lives. No alreay-rich person is incentivized to work more if there isn't a huge payoff connected to it. Is that because already-rich people are lazy? Why, then, are poor people who aren't incentivized to work at a job paying less than $8 per hour.....called lazy layabouts?
Further....I know, and have known, many rich people. I don't even consider the "work" they say they do as being authentic work. Sitting around all day talking on the phone, looking at papers and computer screens, meeting with others, discussing ways to make more profit......telling underlings what to do......how hard of work is that really? Is it harder work than, say, standing on your feet all day grilling burgers? Is it? Or hanging drywall all day?
The most disgusting outcome of the Bankster destruction of the American economy has been the emergence of Know Nothings on the right willing to blame our national crash on stuff like "the welfare state" and "people are lazy with their hands out." It is reprehensible......factually incorrect....and only a ruse to prevent the already-rich in our New Gilded Age from contributing one dollar more in taxes.
I have more faith in my fellow American brethren than, apparently, conservatives and libertarians have. Far and away the majority of people I've ever known want to work a job and provide for their loved ones. The problem has always been having enough good paying jobs to go around.....and those who are today complaining about the "layabouts" are the same folks who have worked their hardest over the last three decades to make sure American workers never gain union representation and never receive a raise.
Finally....though mentioned numerous times before, the fact is that for every available job there are still three Americans scrambling to land it. And that one job pays less on average than jobs avilable before the Bankster crash. The ratio had been 5-1 earlier in the recession, so some improvement. But make no mistake.....it isn't that the welfare state, or Obamacare, is disincentivizing people from working.....it's that there aren't, and haven't been, enough jobs, let alone good-paying jobs, to be had.
Conservatives refuse to consider our nation's economic conditions based on the facts, the realities. Instead, conservatives choose to blame the victims.