Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if a 68 year old man/woman decides that they don't want to work anymore because they saved enough for retirement, just not enough to pay for their insurance if they lost their job, thats a bad thing?
Explain the 99+ weekers who admit not actively seeking to be hired while UE benefits continue to flow from the taxpayers.
You think that is laughable? Me, not so much.
Unemployment isn't the same. Many of those "99 weekers" are looking for jobs that pay the same as what they had before, where they are currently living and saved enough money so that the 300 dollars a week that they receive from the government that they paid into while they were working to secure that can get them by.
I don't like unemployment, but when 70 year old people are working simply because they can't afford insurance without a job, then something is wrong with that system. At worse they are opening positions to newer, younger workers who are going to pay more in taxes then the elderly will ever take.
Oh, I got it , 5 minutes of fact checking shows it was a snippet taken out of context of a much larger dialogue, and flipped to look like hell on earth.
Go figure.
The Republican translation doesn't track, said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute.
"CBO isn't saying that there is job loss as much as they are saying that fewer people will be working," explained Fronstin. "There is a difference. People voluntarily working less isn't the same as employers cutting jobs."
For example, the budget office said some people might decide to retire earlier because it would be easier to get health care, instead of waiting until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
One of the joys on here is stumbling upon these threads posted by ideologues unwilling or able to research on their own. Some propagandist who makes millions spreading lies feeds them another one, and they eat it up. All the other ideological followers jump on board for the first page or two and they all do a big victory dance ... feeling for a moment as if all the false ideas they've been pumped full of have been validated.
Then... someone always comes along who actually thinks for him/herself, does a little independent research, and provides the facts and the whole story.
Inevitably, the thread blows up in the OP's face, the ideologues scrounge for scraps of the lost victory to try and win a point or two on a technicality, sanity is restored to the political process, and we await the next grand Beck manipulation
ROFL... your argument is the little logo in the corner invalidates the video?
Yep, I think you got it. Of course, CSpan also has the video...somewhere. And I'm sure there is text of the testimony as well. But all that doesn't matter.
They don't have to work to have insurance....but if they cannot afford insurance they must pay a fine...
The copays and the fact that most insurance plans won't take a 70 year old person at a reasonable cost forces them to work just to maintain insurance.
This clogs the job market with people who would have retired, and forces younger workers who would have filled that job into needing government assistance.
But when they can get insurance with their preexisting condition of age, then that allows them to retire, and opens up 800000 jobs to newer, younger workers who will pay more in taxes then the elderly people who quit ever would.
Yep, I think you got it. Of course, CSpan also has the video...somewhere. And I'm sure there is text of the testimony as well. But all that doesn't matter.
Source your quote. It's a violation of the rules to put up quotes without sourcing where you got them from.
One of the joys on here is stumbling upon these threads posted by ideologues unwilling or able to research on their own. Some propagandist who makes millions spreading lies feeds them another one, and they eat it up. All the other followers jump on board and they all do a big victory dance ... until someone comes along who actually thinks for him/herself and provides the facts and the whole story.
Then the thread blows up in the OP's face, sanity is restored to the political process, and we await the next grand Beck manipulation
I think it can be explained very simply. Most people make more on unemployment than they do working for minimum wage.
Since you've apparently never been on unemployment, let me explain.
Your unemployment check is based on your pay while you were employed.
So if you were making minimum wage, you won't get the maximum amount which is usually around 350 dollars a week before taxes (yes, you pay taxes on unemployment, and you don't get the EIC either, because its not earned income).
So if you are making minimum wage you might get 200 dollars a week, and that may be over estimating it.
They aren't lost jobs, they are jobs that people will quit because they won't have to work to keep their insurance anymore.
Can't you read good?
That means that there will be 800,000 job openings between now and 2021. I know a lot of people who are looking.
You should know that showing facts to repugs is like destroying all they know and love, lies lies and more lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
