General Discussion

Mass

(27,315 posts) Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:23 AM Feb 2014

Let's hope the White House has a clear counter argument on that and not the usual BS

because you can be sure that these numbers will be used again and again by the GOP and will help them at the end of the year otherwise.

Now, I am curious how they know it is the fault of ACA, but this is the argument I want to hear from the White House.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth

CBO: O-Care slowing growth

The new healthcare law will slow economic growth over the next decade, costing the nation about 2.3 million jobs and contributing to a $1 trillion increase in projected deficits, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released Tuesday.

The non-partisan group’s report found that the healthcare law’s negative effects on the economy will be “substantially larger” than what it had previously anticipated.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth#ixzz2sMpZQdy9
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
...

Further down in the article

CBO now thinks the economy will grow at 3.1 percent in this fiscal year, which ends in October, rather than the 3.4 percent growth it predicted last year.

The unemployment rate is projected to fall to 6.7 percent by the end of the year, much lower than the 7.6 percent CBO saw for 2014 previously. The budget office does not see unemployment falling below 6 percent for the rest of President Obama’s term, however.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth#ixzz2sMqB31Dr
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Added: as expected, this is becoming a GOP talking point on Tweeter. Hopefully, they will come with some sort of a reasonable answer because otherwise, it will hurt in 2014.

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's hope the White House has a clear counter argument on that and not the usual BS (Original Post) Mass Feb 2014 OP

How did the CBO get it so wrong rainy Feb 2014 #1

This is an interesting question, but one that the White House must ask and answer because the media Mass Feb 2014 #3

??? elleng Feb 2014 #2

and it sees budget deficit shrinking. elleng Feb 2014 #4

having trouble parsing this cryptic statement... magical thyme Feb 2014 #5

greg Sargent is doing a great job pushing back Mass Feb 2014 #6

rainy

(6,092 posts)

1. How did the CBO get it so wrong

Reply to Mass (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:29 AM

Feb 2014

in the first place when they were predicting huge savings and reductions? NOW they are saying the opposite. How did that happen?

Mass

(27,315 posts)

3. This is an interesting question, but one that the White House must ask and answer because the media

Reply to rainy (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:31 AM

Feb 2014

will run with the narrative that ACA will kill growth and the GOP will be too happy to have the CBO supportive of their claim.

elleng

(131,073 posts)

2. ???

Reply to Mass (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:29 AM

Feb 2014

'It said this decrease would be caused partly be people leaving the workforce in response to lower jobs offered by employers, and increased insurance coverage through the healthcare law.

It also said employer penalties in the law will decrease wages, and that part-year workers will be slower to return to the work force because they will seek to retain ObamaCare insurance subsidies.'

elleng

(131,073 posts)

4. and it sees budget deficit shrinking.

Reply to Mass (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:36 AM

Feb 2014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111647736

magical thyme

(14,881 posts)

5. having trouble parsing this cryptic statement...

Reply to Mass (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 11:59 AM

Feb 2014

"It said this decrease would be caused partly be people leaving the workforce in response to lower jobs offered by employers, and increased insurance coverage through the healthcare law."

By "lower jobs offered" do they mean "fewer" or "less" jobs offered? Most places I'm aware of have long since cut their part time jobs to less than the 30 hour needed to qualify for benefits. In fact, I just saw somewhere (I think here on DU) somebody writing about their son's job that is 29 hours and 59 minutes -- yes, they literally cut his hours by 60 seconds to avoid paying benefits). Also, most places I'm aware of are already at skeleton staffs and simply cannot cut any more people.

"Increased insurance coverage," are they suggesting that people who would otherwise be able to stay home or retire have been working to buy insurance and now they'll be able to afford inurance without having to work? Because it seems to me that will simply open up that job for somebody who can't find work, or enable other part time workers to increase their hours.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197365-cbo-o-care-slowing-growth#ixzz2sMuV5WeP
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Mass

(27,315 posts)

6. greg Sargent is doing a great job pushing back

Reply to Mass (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2014, 12:39 PM

Feb 2014

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS

Best blogger around in my opinion, dealing with facts more than with ad hominem.

This said, the White House needs to put out an official document.

Reply to this discussion