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.
Can it be true that job recovery was going very well before passage of Obamacare and has fallen off sharply after passage? I see that it may have declined by as much as 10 times. Check this link.
This link indicates that since the passage of Obamacare jobs have dropped from about 65,000 new ones per month to more like 6,500 and then it explains how and why that has happened.
Attack the gd messenger and save yourself from knowing what the message is. If you don't read anything but what you find in Daily Kos you will remain ignorant of the real truth.
Can it be true that job recovery was going very well before passage of Obamacare and has fallen off sharply after passage? I see that it may have declined by as much as 10 times. Check this link.
You accidentally posted the name of the source instead of responding to the question that was asked in the original post. I am sure it was an innocent mistake on your part, but you might want to edit your post to respond to the original question.
OP - I don't think job recovery dropped off of a cliff due to the enacted health care legislation, but it absolutely was slowed. The legislation led to dramatically increased healthcare costs to businesses, and the political uncertainty is making hiring a more risky thing to do.
Can it be true that job recovery was going very well before passage of Obamacare and has fallen off sharply after passage? I see that it may have declined by as much as 10 times. Check this link.
You accidentally posted the name of the source instead of responding to the question that was asked in the original post. I am sure it was an innocent mistake on your part, but you might want to edit your post to respond to the original question.
If you want to defend an article, at least have the necessary information to defend its title, much less the stupidity it encompasses.
If you want to defend an article, at least have the necessary information to defend its title, much less the stupidity it encompasses.
I am not defending that article. I actually think it was very poorly written. I just think a response that says nothing more than the name of a source doesn't add anything to the conversation.
Imagine you and a I are standing in a Wal-Mart discussing politics. Your friend walks in, points to the store and says 'Wal-Mart' and walks away. Did your friend contribute ANYTHING to the conversation?
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.
