No one talking about Obamacare and losing 2 million jobs and going to a 29 hour work week....white house says it will give families more time together...Bull Crap....people that R not on subsidies in healthcare will have to get 2nd job....if U R use to making 20 bucks an hour that is 800 bucks a week...29 hour work week is 580 bucks...what happens to the person or persons that have a mortgage and car payment......U have to work 2 jobs so U would have to see the family less.

Is Spence on vacation????....:)

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

It's not that the report said that employers were going to lay off 2.5 million workers.

WHat the report said, is that millions of Americans will recognize the incentive of working fewer hours, and thus taking advantage of the Obamacare subdsidy (Paul, do you know who pays for the subsidy?).

In other words, people will be faced with a choice...work more hours, and pay for healthcare on my own (which should be precisely what we encourage people to do), or work fewer hours so that income goes down, and thus take advantage of the public subsidies. The CBO estimates that millions of Americans will voluntarily cut back their hours (in other words, millions of Americans will voluntarily impoverish themselves), and thus rely on public subsidies that the rest of us have to pay for.

In other words, Obamacare will increase, by millions of people, the number of folks s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g on the public teat. This has the added bonbus for Obama, of buying quite a few votes, as these parasites won't want to hear a conservative candidate tell them to get their lazy asses back to working 40 hours a week like everyone else has to do.

Here's what I don't get...Bill CLinton is considered a hero among liberals, he enjoys a 70% approval rating. DO liberals not remember what Clinton did after the Gingrich revolution? Clinton kicked millions of poor people off welfare, and told them to go back to work, which is exactly what they did. SO shouldn't Bill CLinton be championing the same conservative economic principles that helped make him popular?

The CBO report confirms what many have suggested, that Obamacare was one morew way of increasing the number of people dependent on the federal government, and decrease the number of people who are self-sufficient. We are providing financial incentives for people to choose to be less self-reliant. Paul, if that's a good thing, the benefit escapes me. The benefit I see is more votes for liberals who want to keep public assistance pumping.

Earth to Obama...we can't all be on public assistance. We can't tax the top 5% high enough, to provide freebies to everyone else. For Christ's sake, this is not higher order calculus, this is grade school arithmetic.

It's not that the report said that employers were going to lay off 2.5 million workers.

WHat the report said, is that millions of Americans will recognize the incentive of working fewer hours, and thus taking advantage of the Obamacare subdsidy (Paul, do you know who pays for the subsidy?).



So I'm guessing he didn't read the report. Heard about it on Fox news?

Yes, I know what a subsidy is and I know what the report said were the reasons for the decrease in people working.

Love it. The White House loved the CBO when the report showed positive things but now that the CBO is showing reality.....no more love
Keep lowering the bar ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep lowering the bar ....


At first the White House went into damage-control mode, arguing that many of the cancelled plans were "junk" insurance and consumers would be better off with the broader coverage available through the health care law's new insurance markets.
But soon Obama was forced to reverse course, urging insurers and state regulators to allow policyholders to keep their existing plans for an additional year. Most states complied with the request.
Now the administration is considering adding more years to this extension to avoid another wave of problems if rates on the exchange climb too high and people are left without an affordable coverage option. Health insurers are supposed to submit by May the rates they want to charge on the exchanges next year.
AP story by Tom Murphy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Love it. The White House loved the CBO when the report showed positive things but now that the CBO is showing reality.....no more love
Keep lowering the bar ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the reality is that there is not going to be 2.5M fewer jobs (like Fox, the Rep. leadership and Fishpart have been saying)

Didn't the right always dispute the CBO's estimates until it finally suited them? So I guess the right's bar was already low.

There are enough reason's for people not to like it without making things up.

And the reality is that there is not going to be 2.5M fewer jobs (like Fox, the Rep. leadership and Fishpart have been saying)

Didn't the right always dispute the CBO's estimates until it finally suited them? So I guess the right's bar was already low.

There are enough reason's for people not to like it without making things up.

Most of us know reality Paul. The CBO reports are now proving the "Right" can say " I told you so"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So I'm guessing he didn't read the report. Heard about it on Fox news?

Yes, I know what a subsidy is and I know what the report said were the reasons for the decrease in people working.

Paul, what do you really think of a government program that effectively encourages 2.5 million people to voluntarily cut back to less than full time, so that they can receive public assistance? Isn't that a BAD thing? How could that not be considered a bad thing? This is by far Obama's most significant achievement, and the effect is to encourage people to be less productive, and to make people more reliant on the feds?

make people more reliant on the feds?

This is the most important point of your explanation and precisely why Obama wanted so desperately to pass Nationalized Healthcare.

I think you think I support it. Is it bc when people post asinine statements about it that have no basis in fact, I ask questions and try to point out the truth (remember I work in HC so I have a slightly better understanding than some of the members here)?

I have seen 2M mentioned and 2.5M mentioned for different timeframes.

The CBO stated some people will leave their jobs bc they no longer need their employer sponsored health ins. (prob. a good thing for a # of reasons) and some will leave bc of the subsidy and will think it isn't worth it for them to work (a bad thing). I don't think they broke out the 2 #s. I think the CBO stated that stop loss for insurers will actually collect like $6B more from insurers in the 3 years it will be inforce then what it would pay out.

Your question to me should be the heart of the issue and waht should be discussed, not the screwed up roll out (what difference does it make now) or taking a point from the CBO and twisting what was said (which is what has been covered in the press for 2 days now).

This is the most important point of your explanation and precisely why Obama wanted so desperately to pass Nationalized Healthcare.

So that was the goal?:rotf2:

I bet you didn't actually read the CBO report. Did you?

I listened to the CBO twice....once before he thought the news media messed it and then when talking to reporters directly.....he changed a few things the 2nd time to make it sound better....now UUUU tell me how people working 11 less hrs. making the same amount of hourly wage can only work one job and afford a mortgage and car payment and I realize they that R on subsidy more then likely do not own a home or work.

And I do realize that the loss is over about a 10 year spread so that is somewhere 210,000 + or -

maybe the CBO was an imposter...the first tally was a few months ago was about 800 thou....maybe I read his lips wrong...:)

So that was the goal?:rotf2:

To get more people dependent on the feds, and therefore more people who vote for dems.

To get more people dependent on the feds, and therefore more people who vote for dems.

That is a joke so I'm out,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is a joke so I'm out,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out. Why are most liberals opposed to something as obvious as securing our borders? Same reason, they want to put more dependent folks on the voting rolls. Paul, I asked if you thought it was good policy to incentivize millions to freely impoverish themselves and get on the public dole? You dodged that, I see. Gee, anyone care to venture a guess why you chose not to answer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can understand why 800 thou or 2 million may drop out that is if they earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level....but if their income risers above, their sudsidy will decrease and if they make over the poverty level they would see their insurance rise so I could see where this would discourage working and staying under the fed guide line.

Every county in the country will have a different poverty level I do believe....I may be a little confused since this was not mentioned on fox to my knowledge...I will have to stop watching Restaurant Impossible to catch up on the truth...LOL

Is this like Nance Pelosi saying waiting hrs longer in the hospital emergency room will allow you to make a bunch of new friends.




No one talking about Obamacare and losing 2 million jobs and going to a 29 hour work week....white house says it will give families more time together...Bull Crap....people that R not on subsidies in healthcare will have to get 2nd job....if U R use to making 20 bucks an hour that is 800 bucks a week...29 hour work week is 580 bucks...what happens to the person or persons that have a mortgage and car payment......U have to work 2 jobs so U would have to see the family less.

Is Spence on vacation????....:)

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The people who choose to work less, are doing so, SPECIFICALLY because they'd rather work less and therefore qualify for federal assistance. Imagine that 2.5 million Americans who are employed, decided that they'd rather quit and collect unemployment checks. The effect will be to add millions to the group of folks receiving public assistance. The folks filling the void will be picking up a few hours here and there, it's not a zero sum game, the net effect is hugely subtractive. Except, in the sense that it will create more people dependent upon public assistance, which is the same thing as saying it will create more people who will vote for the Democrats.

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only if its profitable . Our company pays 100% health insurance ...for now. But I know the inevitable is coming.
When we are short on help now ,we do not hire, we use temporary labor force.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like Buckman our insurance is paid 100% by the company.

Here is my question: If Essex County federal income is 58,000 and I can make up to 400% to qualify for Obama care can I makeup to $232,000.00 and be eligible for Obamacare??

Ones lost job is another's gain. I don't get it, if a company requires x employees but now has (x-1) then that company will be looking to hire one person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's very true.

The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced. If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence

That's very true.

The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced. If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence

You're missing a salient point. If the CBO is correct, millions of Americans will voluntarily and intentionally impoverish themselves in order to qualify for public assistance. Spence, we can't ALL be on the public teat. It's better for people to be self-sufficient.

You're missing a salient point. If the CBO is correct, millions of Americans will voluntarily and intentionally impoverish themselves in order to qualify for public assistance. Spence, we can't ALL be on the public teat. It's better for people to be self-sufficient.

Spence is deeply offended you even dare bring that up.... Apparently you reach a point in your liberal transformation where everything is offensive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's very true.

The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced. If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence

"To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive"

Yes, it offends me to. I am deeply offended at the idea that people would manipulate their circumstances to receive welfare that they don't need. However, that I find it offensive, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. So I'm not sure what your point was.

"My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job"

God almighty, Spence...the CBO didn't declare that no one will choose to continue to work, they estimate that 2.5 million people (less than 1% of the population) would do so. So the fact that you know a guy who wouldn't behave that way, in no way refutes what the CBO said.

Spence, I might say that 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock. You cannot refute that, by saying that you know a black guy who has a kid, and he's a good dad. You sound like one of those idiotic celebrities who defend tyrants, like Dennis Rodman, defending a dictator just because Rodman never personally witnessed any atrocities.

You're better than this...

Spence is deeply offended you even dare bring that up.... Apparently you reach a point in your liberal transformation where everything is offensive
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and that's the truth. Anytime anyone questions the Messiah, anytime someone isn't inclined to kneel at Obama's feet and kiss his ring, is deeply offensive to his supporters worshippers.

QUOTE[=spence;1031128]
The CBO report didn't say the impact of the ACA would be less jobs, it was that the supply of labor would potentially be reduced.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If there is not enough labor to fill a job, does that job exist? If the business must perform in spite of an unfilled current "job," it distributes the work to its existing labor force, and there is one less theoretical job.

If the economy is stable or growing that person leaving the workforce would likely translate into a job for someone else.

If the reason the person left the workforce is because it was more economically rational to do so because he would be better off with government subsidies than by continuing a particular job, wouldn't it be likely that potential employees to fill the job would come to the same conclusion and take the government subsidies rather than the job? And isn't that one of the reasons the CBO claimed would be the cause of less jobs?

Also consider that with the baby boomers increasingly leaving the workforce the supply of labor will be dropping even more. This is a far bigger challenge to economic growth than the impact of the ACA.

So why add the impact of the ACA on top of that? Is the sensible point of view "oh its going to be bad, so why not make it worse?"

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence[/QUOTE]

Aren't you saying that if the ACA had been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous in order to get on a government subsidy (dole) rather than continuing at a very low paying job? Are you offended by that--to say the least? And it is very interesting that you characterize their lives as going down the drain those 10 years. That seems to be the underlying, if not explicit, progressive message that without government assistance life is little worth living. Or, at least, needed to make life worthwhile--except, of course, for the "rich."

I don't know if 10 or 20 years down the road the ACA will make health care more "affordable" or not. Nor if constant government tweaking and forcing the "economy" to perform in prescribed ways will make life worthwhile. Maybe it will. Of course, "worthwhile" is in the eye of the beholder. So far, socialist systems and schemes have constantly needed just a few more tweaks or "programs" to make life better. So far, it hasn't been quite enough--often worse than what was replaced, but perpetual (permanent) progress, I guess, works that way. There is always room for "improvement." There will always be bumps along the way, but eventually, in the visible bright horizon, all will be well and just and fair--and affordable.

Though I'm not sure, I have very strong doubts about that. I like that adage that life is more interesting, meaningful, in what happens as you struggle to reach a goal than it is when that goal is reached. And that it's less meaningful if the struggle is eliminated by a third party (government) and the goal is defined and provided by that party.

But that's just "old school." And the Brave New World of the Big Society casting its net of benevolence over all has now become necessary in order for the personal satisfaction of each to be realized--and affordable. In that new world order, everyone will have the leisure to achieve the great, or wonderful, or satisfying works that make society the utopia which was only previously dreamed of. We can all be artists, or builders, or scientists, or just lay back and enjoy watching the wonders unfolding before us. Of course, if some, or more likely many or most, become watchers, either that will be OK and affordable, or the government can create a program to make them more productive.

Debating whether the ACA, or the endless other federal "programs" for our well being will "work" seems to get nowhere. "Sides" have been solidified, and arguments, rationalizations, butt horns without changes of opinion. If something "works" or not seems to be a matter of opinion, with various "facts," substantially connected to the arguments, or not. Or something always to be determined--the argument eventually forgotten in some distant future when the "program" has metastasized as a fact and merely to be reformed to be made right. Ad infinitum.

I don't know if the ACA will eventually "work." Some will see that it does. That will be a matter of opinion on what "work" is. And that is the divide. It may "work" for those receiving benefits. It may not for those who pay for it. It may "work" for those who prefer to be free to spectate without the discomfort of having to provide the freedom, and it may not for those who wish to be free on more personal terms, and must provide the entertainment for the rest, and be free from the government coercion to do so in the limited prescribed way that the government dictates.

Isn't that a distinction without a difference? If there is not enough labor to fill a job, does that job exist? If the business must perform in spite of an unfilled current "job," it distributes the work to its existing labor force, and there is one less theoretical job.
If the existing labor force already had the capacity to do the job it likely wouldn't have existed in the first place. If the employer needed the labor to run their business they would likely hire a replacement.

Or they could retool processes and reduce the job through increased efficiency, but this is a normal course of business.

If the reason the person left the workforce is because it was more economically rational to do so because he would be better off with government subsidies than by continuing a particular job, wouldn't it be likely that potential employees to fill the job would come to the same conclusion and take the government subsidies rather than the job? And isn't that one of the reasons the CBO claimed would be the cause of less jobs?
It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.

Also, the CBO number wasn't really a number of lost jobs, they estimated a number of reduced hours of labor supply. To be honest I'm not sure how they could even predict this with any accuracy.



So why add the impact of the ACA on top of that? Is the sensible point of view "oh its going to be bad, so why not make it worse?"
There's a different between a total number of people able to work, versus some that may reduce hours. Definitely from the employers perspective.

Aren't you saying that if the ACA had been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous in order to get on a government subsidy (dole) rather than continuing at a very low paying job? Are you offended by that--to say the least? And it is very interesting that you characterize their lives as going down the drain those 10 years. That seems to be the underlying, if not explicit, progressive message that without government assistance life is little worth living. Or, at least, needed to make life worthwhile--except, of course, for the "rich."
That's some serious spin. In my neighbor's case she would have left work to be able to spend more time at home, not to access a government benefit.

-spence

If the existing labor force already had the capacity to do the job it likely wouldn't have existed in the first place.

If, according to the CBO, the reduction in the potential for two & a half million jobs is mostly from less people choosing to seek work (drop in the labor supply), how are those non-workers going to pay for their necessities and luxuries and insurances? If government subsidies provide for most of that, then isn't government policy greatly responsible for the decreased labor supply?

Larger populations create opportunity for greater production and jobs, which means economic growth. The portion of the population who choose not to participate in the process proportionately decrease growth. If those who are being subsidized by government create a demand for production but don't provide a reciprocal workforce to fulfill necessary production there will be less goods than the demand requires. Which will cause a rise in prices. That is, inflation will be fueled by an influx of fake money (government subsidy) which is not backed by the value of labor or trade commodity.

That is, in direct response to your assertion, an existing labor force has "the capacity to do the job" if that force is adequate to fulfill demand. When reduced labor supply cannot provide the required labor force, the demand cannot be met.

If the employer needed the labor to run their business they would likely hire a replacement.

That can only be done if labor was willing. If a willing worker could be hired to replace an unwilling one, that would merely be a trade in places--the one on dole would work and the one who had worked would then be on dole. No gain, just the same low growth status quo and no more money collected by the public treasury to pay for the dole.

And if government policy made it more rational, economically, to collect subsidy than fill the job, why would someone else be eager to fill it--unless their unemployment span was over and they didn't have government health care subsidy.

Or they could retool processes and reduce the job through increased efficiency, but this is a normal course of business.

Yup. A job would be "lost."

It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.

I guess one way to solve it is to remove the gravy train.

That's some serious spin. In my neighbor's case she would have left work to be able to spend more time at home, not to access a government benefit.

-spence

I thought you said that if the ACA had been in effect at the time, she would have quit. Would that have been to access the government benefit? If the government benefit was not the reason for quitting, she could have left work to spend more time at home at any time she wanted. Most of us would like to quit not for a government benefit but to spend more time at home. I guess, with the ACA, not that it would be the reason, we should be expecting a whole lot more to do so. Would that be the loss of the equivalence of 2.5 million jobs the CBO referred to. With this line of thinking, the loss could be a lot greater. But, then, the economic shrinkage, the demand for products that couldn't be met by a shrinking labor force, and the very unattractive taxes which would have to be levied to make up for it might cause some to rethink.

It's a big assumption to think everybody is just itching to get on the gravy train. Some may, but there's no way to really estimate this.


-spence

The CBO said that 2.5 million people would manipulate their situation to get on the gravy train. That's less than 1% of the US population. That's hardly suggesting that "everybody" wants to get on the gravy train. 1% is a lot less than "everybody", isn't it?

"there's no way to really estimate this."

Translation...when the CBO's conclusions do not paint Obama in a favorable light, we must dismiss the CBO's ability to do quantitative analysis.

I thought you said that if the ACA had been in effect at the time, she would have quit. Would that have been to access the government benefit?
She continued to work to maintain their family health insurance, her husband was a self employed contractor and didn't have that benefit.

Has nothing to do with potential government perks.

-spence

The CBO said that 2.5 million people would manipulate their situation to get on the gravy train.

Fail.

-spence

She continued to work to maintain their family health insurance, her husband was a self employed contractor and didn't have that benefit.

Has nothing to do with potential government perks.

-spence

Well, if no government perks would have anything to do with quitting, then it sounds like she needed to work to supplement the household income since her husband wasn't making enough to buy adequate insurance. Sounds like something worthwhile and to be proud of rather than, as you say "a lot life going down the drain." Good role model for the kids. Good for the "economy." And financially good for the family since she must have made much more than required to pay her premiums.

Sounds like she might have benefited from allowing interstate insurance purchasing and tort reform and true competition among insurers. Of course, I'd go a lot farther than that. More like eliminating third party pay for health care except for those who might want to invest in some catastrophic plan. I don't see the necessity of creating a monstrosity such as the ACA. And given its various restrictions and qualifications, even some in situations like hers might find insurance too expensive.

But that's small potatoes. The rest of my post which you skipped was more germane to the CBO discussion.

To assume people choosing to leave the workforce so they can get on the government doll is offensive to say the least. My neighbor worked up until retirement at a very low paying job -- across the state -- just to keep the health insurance for her and her husband. Had the ACA been in effect she would have quit over 10 years previous...that's a lot of life gone down the drain.

-spence

You have maintained a couple of times that she would have quit her job if the ACA had been in effect, not to get on the government dole, but in order to keep health insurance. And that to assume quitting her job in order to get on the government dole is offensive. This is an example of how progressive use of language fundamentally transforms our culture.

First, to quit the job which enabled her to have insurance in order to keep her insurance makes no sense. Unless she quits in order to get a better job. But quitting work altogether is not getting a higher paying or better job. Quitting work altogether in order to qualify for a government subsidy to pay for insurance would, to a rational mind, be quitting the job to receive government assistance in paying for insurance. Government assistance is, if I'm not mistaken, a form of government dole. In our current day progressive think, this is a rational, admirable decision. It is to be lauded. That's what the dole is for. It is no longer merely for indigents, but for the majority, common person, who may need a little hand-up not a hand-out.

And what used to be a factor in American culture, shame, is eradicated in current progressive America. It used to be a mark of poor character to receive dole if you could possibly make do yourself. People worked in ways that were "uncomfortable," and even at subsistence wages to avoid that mark. And most, eventually, worked out of that status into a better one. That is the "ethic" which made viable the economic mobility that this country is, or was, famous for. It used to be referred to as the "work ethic."

Somehow, maybe as a result of the usual consequence of success taken for granted, we have assumed that old ethic is no longer truly necessary. Not if it is too onerous. A great nation's success should lead to an easing of conditions for all of its citizens. Leisure time, ease and comfort in living, playful enjoyment, should not have to be strived for in difficult or demeaning ways, but entitlement to it should be a new liberating "ethic" defined and assisted, if not provided, by government.

So the word "dole" is antiquated. "Offensive." Even "assistance" is a bit off color. "Subsidy," or even more so, "a right," is a more appropriate way to inoffensively speak. If there is a government program which can provide "subsidy" it is your "right" to it--even your duty to use it. This is the privilege of all (except for those who don't qualify). It is fair, and just, and the right of Americans to demand it. Some of these new privileges are even granted to many who are not actually Americans.

So let us not "offend." Those in the past who didn't consider their life "going down the drain" when they struggled to provide for themselves rather than receive what used to be called a dole, were naïve. The pride they took in self-sufficiency was overblown ego to the detriment of their own well-being. Never again should any of us have to struggle as they did. We are greater than they because of understanding what is truly important in life. And our country will flourish and become greater in this knowledge.

As an aside, when Representative Diane Blake asked the CBO director what effect the ACA would have on the economy, his response was "it is the central factor in slowing economic growth." So let's see--the ACA slows economic growth, it creates a disincentive to work, and it reduces income--But it creates more leisure time, time spent with family, a better life for those who are qualified. Eventually, even the rest of us may become qualified. The labor supply can be reduced to the small, ignorant, percentage of those who have a false pride. Not sure of what that does to other government programs to make our lives better, i.e. social security, Medicare, the ACA itself, food stamps, social and corporate welfare in general, government bailouts of failing businesses who can't compete without adequate labor supply and rising inflation--what happens to the tax base necessary to provide all the goodies? Not to worry. Some new progressive solution will evolve. Life is too good to waste it on work.

And this new "ethic" can totally replace that old one, as progressive ideology replaces all that other musty old stuff like constitutions, rule of law, individual sovereignty, personal responsibility, and all those ancient associations which impede our "modern" administrative State's ability to define our liberty and provide it for us.