Skip to main content

Man in suit with fingers crossed behind his back.
Wondering if Republicans would really be dishonest enough to keep up their "CBO sez Obamacare will destroy the economy" lie, even after the CBO sent another memo, saying point blank that that is obviously not what they said at all? Wonder no further. Because, if it's on Fox News, it's Republican strategy. Crooks and Liars finds this, at the Fox News blog.
Mark Thiessen says American workers are getting a $70 billion pay cut due to ObamaCare.

“I dug through the CBO report and on page 118, appendix C, there’s this nugget, this little bombshell,” Thiessen said.

The report reads: “CBO estimates that the ACA will cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation over the 2017-2024 period, compared with what it would have been otherwise.”

That means that Americans will face a 1 percent pay cut due to the law.

No, it doesn't. It means fewer workers—those people who choose to leave the workforce—will be getting paid. Or, as the CBO actually said: "Because the largest declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in hours worked."

As if the facts mattered to Fox News, or to Republicans. But it's always good to see the script Fox is creating for Republicans ahead of time.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:46 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:46:18 AM PST

  •  I think they used to call Fox News... (6+ / 0-)

    ..."Pravda" back when it was located in Moscow and came out in print.

    "Life is the crummiest book I ever read - there isn't a hook, just a lot of cheap shots, pictures to shock, and characters an amateur would never dream up." - Bad Religion

    by TheOrchid on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:55:36 AM PST

    •  Before that it was called dogshit, when it was (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GAS, mikeVA

      plopped on the sidewalk.

      It still is called that in many circles.

      Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

      by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:02:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Clinton Did Not See Popularity Dip In 2nd Term (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    More Questions Than Answers

    Yes the economy was in better shape. But much of it was due to the people tiring of the GOP approach of making everything look like a scandal of huge magnitude. The dynamic should be the same here.

  •  1% over a seven year period... (0+ / 0-)

    Is that 1% every year or .00142857% per year?

    •  No, no, NO! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Back In Blue
      Is that 1% every year or .00142857% per year?
      You clearly don't understand how this is done.

      It must be 1% every year, since that's the worst possible interpretation--and since Obama is involved, the worst possible interpretation is the operative one.

      Stop thinking!

      "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" -- (Talbot, in: The Maid of Orleans by Friedrich Schiller)

      by rfall on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:28:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  not really seeing much of a distinction (0+ / 0-)

    between these two

    "That means that Americans will face a 1 percent pay cut due to the law."

    "It means fewer workers—those people who choose to leave the workforce—will be getting paid."

    As fewer workers will be getting paid, Americans will face a one percent pay cut...On average of course, not each and every one of us will lose one percent.

  •  Y'all are missing the most salient point..... (7+ / 0-)

    When the CBO described the 2.3 million people who will be able to voluntarily work fewer hours because of ObamaCare, CBO also mentioned that this would likely have the affect of increasing wages to entice these same 2.3 million people to working more hours.

    ObamaCare will raise wages.

  •  It scares me (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    myboo, Ahianne

    FOX is ridiculous and often humorous - but the fact that they can get millions of people red-in-the-face enraged, and shouting "Benghazi" doesn't help me sleep better at night.

    Not gonna go all Godwin's Law - but propaganda works and apparently we are surrounded by feeble-minds.

    If anyone needs any more proof - Just look at Congress

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:23:26 PM PST

  •  Staggering intellectual dishonesty ... (0+ / 0-)

    Yet they top it, daily.

    •  There oughta be a law (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      against misleading people and outright lying, causing losses to people and gains for the deceivers.

      This goes beyond free speech.  It's causing real harm in the lives of people that are sick and injured and don't get care.

      It makes me sick that they can spew this stuff on our own public airwaves.  

  •  They say that women who work are ruining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back In Blue

    the fabric of society, yet they have a problem with a mother choosing not to work to stay at home with her children because she can obtain health care without being tied to her job. Pretty hypocritical for a party that thinks women have smaller feet so they can stand closer to the sink.

    “He talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans.” James Carville

    by Mokislab on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:48:58 PM PST

    •  Women should stay home because freedom. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I know you know this but it bears repeating: women aren't allowed to make their own decisions in the GOP hive-mind.

      - Women who choose to go to work to secure health insurance and other benefits are scary feminazi's.

      - Women who stay home and can't afford health insurance are lazy, slutty, welfare queens.

      - Women who take advantage of the ACA and can now afford health insurance and don't need an employer are are lazy, slutty takers (also known as welfare queens).

      - Women who are silent and do only what the menfolk tell them are heroes.

      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

      by Back In Blue on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:17:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  pretty much says it all about Faux Newz (0+ / 0-)

    Gabriel Sherman's new book "The Loudest Voice in the Room"

  •  Fox "news"(sic) saying what something means.... (0+ / 0-)


  •  Stupid or willfully so? (0+ / 0-)
    a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor compensation
    I'm sure if they're just plain stupid, and can't parse out thoughts of more than three words, or if they do it on purpose.

    When I read this sentence, I thought "aggregate compared to what?".  That leads to me trying to find out more from the report so I can place this statement in context.

    They read it and think "Wow!  They just said that everyone will get a 1% reduction in pay!" and stopped reading (and thinking).

    Is it willful stupidity if you just don't bother to think further?

    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" -- (Talbot, in: The Maid of Orleans by Friedrich Schiller)

    by rfall on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:26:18 PM PST

  •  Personally, I blame the CBO (0+ / 0-)

    for a report that is really hard to parse, even with a college+post grad education. The reason we see the benefit of the alleged workforce reduction (which is, after all, only an estimate/prediction, i.e. educated guess) is because we understand the purpose of the ACA and how it's supposed to work, not because what the CBO says, because what the CBO says doesn't make a lot of sense, which is why Fox is having such a field day with it.

    What is this 1% reduction, anyway? Is it, perhaps, a projected increase in the cost of health insurance that the ACA is expected to prevent? By calling it "compensation" they are making it difficult to understand whether they mean the cost or the value of fringe benefits, or actual reductions in take-home pay. And the further suggestion that most people who reduce their hours will be low wage workers...why would that be? I thought low-wage workers were the ones who didn't have health insurance at their jobs, so why would they working less? If it's because they'd qualify for Medicaid, why would they work less if they already make so little that they're barely at the poverty level? If anything, it looks a lot of people who would qualify for expanded Medicaid in red states are going to have to earn more to qualify for exchange plans, so there's people working MORE.

    But over all, I don't see that all kinds of people who have health insurance are going to give up their full time job with health benefits in exchange for a part-time job with a subsidized ACA exchange plan. People still have to pay rent, buy food, and try to save. In such an uncertain economy, I would think the number of people with the confidence to give up a full time job would be pretty low.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:28:38 PM PST

    •  Go ask, Alice (0+ / 0-)

      if that work will still need doing, then by who?
      No change in work required means you need to put more hands on. The truth would then be: 2.5 million New Jobs created by Obamacare"

      •  More accurately, 2.5 million jobs opened up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joe Jackson

        by Obamacare, since they are existing jobs that would be made available rather than new jobs being created. But the CBO's language describes it in the worst possible way.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 06:45:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  He dug through the report (0+ / 0-)

    to find something - anything - that he could use to try and undermine Obamacare.  He probably got a boner when he saw his little "nugget," he wasn't looking for context, he probably stopped reading as soon as he read it.  Who cares that the implication he makes is totally false?  Since when has the truth mattered to the Fox News audience?  That ship sailed a loooooong time ago.

    Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

    by democracy inaction on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:40:51 PM PST

  •  they might initiate a talking pt but only radio (0+ / 0-)

    can do the groundwork repetition needed to make it into a sustainable lie

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:30:55 PM PST

  •  I can see the Fox News job announcements now, (0+ / 0-)

    "Qualified applicants must suck at reading comprehension or be able to lie with a straight face. The best qualified applicants will meet both criteria."

    I'm too [insert adjective of choice, e.g., sane] to vote Republican.

    by Linus Too on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 12:06:05 AM PST

  •  Labor Compensation (0+ / 0-)

    As far as I know, labor compensation is not just wages, but all benefits.  This could also mean that with a reduction in healthcare costs, companies will end up paying less in terms of benefits. It might actually be a pro-business message.  Anyone have any thoughts on this?

  •  The ACA will destroy all life on this planet!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    I'm actually surprised that they haven't just said this because- listening to Republicans and teabaggers talk about it- ACA has basically become the source of all evil and pestilence in the world today.  After 3+ years of demonizing it, you'd think that the script would be getting old and tiring by now but apparently there are still plenty of online trolls and politicians at the state and federal level whom continue to advance the idea that affordable health care is going to destroy our country.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site