Look, let's be clear: you are lazy if you can work but prefer taking money from me so you can pursue your dream of being a stoner or an artist or a dancer.

<<< This chart comes from the recent CBO report and shows a shocking decline in the labor force well past 2025.  Those who are leaving the labor force to "pursue their dreams" while living off the rest of us,  those jobs will not be filled 

This week, America’s political class has been consumed by an intense, vitriolic debate over a single number: 2.5 million.

That’s the amount by which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, President Obama’s signature health care law will effectively reduce the U.S. work force over the next decade.

The initial Republican reaction was predictable: Pundits filled the airwaves, Cassandra-like, to paint Obamacare as the ultimate job killer. Never mind that, reading the fine print, it’s clear the CBO was talking about workers voluntarily reducing their hours in response to the law—not getting laid off or seeing their shifts scaled back.

Editor's notes:  Apparently "getting laid off or seeing . . . . shifts scaled back  (that is happening,  you know) is a curse while quitting your job because others are subsidizing your health insurance is a good thing.  

And anyway, isn’t that supposed to be a good thing?  Editor: it isn't a good thing if I choose to work to get ahead AND have to subsidizer your laziness, and, again,  you ARE lazy if you are my neighbor,  and taking my hard earned money so you stay home to be a parent to children who are not home but attending school.  

. . . . . .  Then real progress would begin. Humane and moral progress. Instead of perpetual consumerism and the infinite increase in material wealth, we would naturally turn to improving the human condition, learning how to live together “wisely, agreeable, and well,” as Keynes put it. Progress would then take the form of healthier families, communities and cities—the increase of knowledge, the enjoyment of nature, history and other peoples, an increasing delight in the marvels of the human spirit, the practice of our beliefs and values together, the finding of common ground for conviviality, expanding our awareness of God, wondering in Creation.  Editor: lets not forget to add poorer hard working neighbors,  a life living on the dole and passing that tradition on to your children, forgetting about the need to further your schooling since you no longer need to work,  and living a life where "perpetual consumerism" is replaced by perpetual welfare.  Never mind upward mobility - you have sold that off for a stay at home,  stay where you,  life of loafing around the block in order to maintain your health,  now that you have the time do so because you are taking money out of my pocket.  

  

Most Americans approved, counting work reductions as the better half of industrial progress (higher wages and shorter hours). Editor:  actually,  most Americans did not approve,  preferring to work versus living off others' sacrifice and ingenuity.  

No one expected this progress would end. Quite the contrary. Through the last century, observers such as John Maynard Keynes, Julien Huxley, Dorothy Canfield Fisher and Eric Sevareid regularly predicted that soon America would enter an age of leisure in which we would chose to devote more and more of our lives to the “pursuit of happiness” promised in the Declaration of Independence. As technology created “labor-saving” machines and the economy grew, they reasoned, we would gradually be able to buy back more of our time from our jobs, preferring leisure to new goods and services that we had never needed, or even seen before.  Editor:  the professor never gets around to telling the reader that all of this Utopian balther is not possible without a taxation rate (eventually) of 90% for ALL Americans  --  just as soon as the word is out that the industrious among us can earn enough to support all of us.  

These lofty sentiments mixed with the ordinary delights: slow meals together (Ralph Waldo Emerson), conversations in the evening (Henry David Thoreau), dancing the night away (William Ellery Channing), singing in the choir (Jonathan Edwards), “observing a spear of summer grass” (Walt Whitman), reading and talking about books (Robert Hutchins), playing amateur sports (Fannia Cohn) and walking around Central Park in the dead of winter (Elizabeth Hasanovitz). Even Abraham Lincoln believed that the steam plow and other agricultural technologies would free farm workers from steady toil for more opportunities to learn, socialize, govern themselves and pursue happiness.

<<< This chart comes from the recent CBO report and shows a shocking decline in the labor force well past 2025.  Those who are leaving the labor force to "pursue their dreams" while living off the rest of us,  those jobs will not be filled.  If intended as a true projection, the chart shows 10 million folks leaving the workforce by 2025.

Editor’s notes:  It is not a good thing when the very report we are talking about,  the  "CBO"  report framing the 10 year forecast for this nation,  makes the case in the most negative of terms.  Indeed,  folks are no longer incentivized to work.  The argument,  by Libs,  that these abandoned jobs will be filled by those who want to work,  is not supported by the CBO’s report and a simple look at the charts accompanying the report,  proves my point,  especially the chart showing employment projects for the future.

Benjamin Kline Hunnicut is professor of leisure studies at the University of Iowa and author of  The Forgotten American Dream.

Read the full article,  an Utopian fanciful explanation for the job creating failures of the Obama Administration:    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/jobs-leisure-republicans-want-us-to-work-all-the-time-103282.html#ixzz2srkK8CS0

The recent CBO report makes it clear that the nation's Progressives have given up on "job creation" and these clowns think this is a good thing.

10 Trillion will be added to the national debt over the course of the next ten years.  Obama's lie had ObamaCare adding more than 150 billion dollars per year,  to the nation's economy.  Instead,  this "10 trillion" number is 1 trillion per year,  more than 10 times the estimated cost  . . . . . estimated by the liars within this Administration.  I do not like the sound of "liar" but there is simply no way to frame this eventuality.  NOTHING about ObamaCare has been proven to be true.  It increases the costs for all you have to actually pay for their coverage,  and those increases are dramatic.  We were promised just the opposite.  We were promised we could keep our current policies and doctors and hospitals  -  outrageous lies told by people who knew these were lies at the time they were spoken.  "Universal?"  Just as many folks will be uninsured by the time "sign-ups" are over,  than before,  and,  the authors of this idiot's bill knew this to be true at the time of the false projections.  Abortions will be funded despite promises arrogantly made,  otherwise.  

The following is page 14 of this 176 page report.  I think it is as important a single page within this summary by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), as any.  Editor notes not a part of the CBO text are noted in obvious terms.

  

(Page) 14 

THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: 2014 TO 2024 FEBRUARY 2014

Click on "CBO" for the full and official report. 

CBO’s Baseline Budget Projections for  2015 to 2024

CBO constructs its baseline in accordance with provisions

set forth in the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-177) and the

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

1974 (P.L. 93-344). For the most part, those laws require

that the baseline projections incorporate the assumption

that current laws governing taxes and spending remain in

place in future years. 

(Note: Baseline budgeting begins with current spending levels as the "baseline" for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget multiplied by the inflation rate times the population growth rate.  It assumes systemic increases in spending with no end in sight. When discussing a particular budget based on baseline projections,  the particular year used in setting the baseline becomes critical and this changes changes with the passing of each and every fiscal year - blog editor)

Under that assumption, CBO projects that the budget

deficit will continue shrinking in 2015—to $478 billion,

or 2.6 percent of GDP. But beginning in 2016, the deficit

is projected to increase again both in dollar terms and as a

share of the economy, totaling 4.2 percent of GDP by

2022 before dipping back down to 4.0 percent in 2024.

That decline in the deficit is the result of shifts in the timing

of certain payments; without those shifts, the deficit

would increase from 3.9 percent of GDP in 2022 to

4.2 percent in 2024.8

Most of the projected decline in the deficit next year

under CBO’s baseline [using the 2012 or is                                                                     it the 2013 budgetary numbers ??]                                                                                  is the result of a significant rise in

projected revenues. In total, revenues are estimated to

increase by 9 percent in 2015—in part because of the

recent expiration of various tax provisions—reaching

18.2 percent of GDP. They are projected to remain fairly

stable as a share of GDP through 2024.

Outlays in CBO’s baseline grow to about 21 percent of

GDP in 2015 and then generally follow an upward trend,

reaching 22.4 percent of GDP by 2024.9 Because of the

aging of the population, rising health care costs, and a

significant expansion in eligibility for federal subsidies for

health insurance, outlays for Social Security and the

federal government’s major health care programs are

projected to rise substantially relative to the size of the

economy over the next 10 years. In addition, growing

debt and rising interest rates will boost net interest payments.

Total spending on all other programs is projected

to decline relative to GDP between 2015 and 2024,

primarily because of improving economic conditions and

the spending limits in current law.

Revenues

If current laws remained unchanged, revenues would

increase as a share of GDP by 0.7 percentage points from

2014 to 2015, by CBO’s estimates. Slightly more than

half of that increase would result from changes in tax

provisions, including the recent expiration of various provisions

affecting corporate and individual income taxes

and the implementation of fees and fines established by

the Affordable Care Act (see Chapter 4 for more details

on those changes).

From 2016 through 2024, revenues in CBO’s baseline

remain between 18.0 percent and 18.4 percent of GDP,

largely reflecting offsetting movements in receipts from

individual and corporate income taxes and remittances

from the Federal Reserve. Individual income taxes are

projected to generate increasing revenues relative to the

size of economy, growing from 8.5 percent of GDP in

2015 to 9.4 percent in 2024. The increase stems largely

from real bracket creep (a phenomenon in which growth

in real, or inflation-adjusted, income of individuals

pushes more income into higher tax brackets) and from

increases in withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement

accounts as baby boomers retire.

In contrast, after the first few years of the projection

period, corporate income tax receipts and remittances

from the Federal Reserve decline relative to the size of the

economy in CBO’s baseline. Corporate income tax

receipts are projected to decrease relative to GDP after

2016 because of an anticipated drop in domestic economic

profits relative to GDP, the result of rising interest

payments on businesses’ debt, growing labor costs, and

increasing deductions for depreciation on the larger stock

of business capital. Remittances from the Federal Reserve,

which have been very high by historical standards in the

past four years because of changes in the size and composition

of the central bank’s portfolio of securities, decline

in CBO’s projections to more typical levels.