Congressional Budget Office - ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

[sactoking]

That isn't where my premise is flawed, because that isn't the basis for their argument. If someone was arguing that we should alter the tax and subsidy incentives to work differently that would be one thing, but their argument is that people working fewer hours is inherently bad, which it isn't.

To quote Bureaucrat #1 from Futurama: "You are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

It is technically correct that working fewer hours in inherently bad but focusing on that for your counterpoint seems to be, intentionally or not, ignoring the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that working fewer hours because of the taxes and disincentives in the ACA is inherently bad. Working in legislative analysis like I do one of the first things you learn is that you can't read a statute in isolation, you have to read it in full context. The same thing applies here, to focus on the literal statement that working less is inherently bad ignores the fact that the statement is being made in the context of a specific tax/disincentive scheme, so the statement should be analyzed in the context of that scheme.

 

[Jhhnn]

To quote Bureaucrat #1 from Futurama: "You are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

It is technically correct that working fewer hours in inherently bad but focusing on that for your counterpoint seems to be, intentionally or not, ignoring the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that working fewer hours because of the taxes and disincentives in the ACA is inherently bad. Working in legislative analysis like I do one of the first things you learn is that you can't read a statute in isolation, you have to read it in full context. The same thing applies here, to focus on the literal statement that working less is inherently bad ignores the fact that the statement is being made in the context of a specific tax/disincentive scheme, so the statement should be analyzed in the context of that scheme.

Agreed. Working less is not inherently bad in the face of so many people having no work at all.

Which is the whole point. Exiting the work force means that you'll probably need to make do with less income, and some people are in the position where they can with a little help from ACA subsidies. It means they'll make the trade-off, settle for less money in return for more free time, or for time to start a business, be a stay at home parent, elderly caregiver or volunteer.

Lots of people who have some wealth can use this to their advantage, just so long as they can look at the whole picture of their cash flow needs & desires. Sometimes the difference of a few hundred a month makes all the difference in the world.

 

[theeedude]

So Obamacare gives some people who were stuck at a dead end job to keep their insurance an option of leaving work. Of course that doesn't eliminate the position, so someone else will be hired to fill it. Net impact on employment is zero, and probably a net positive if some of those who leave jobs pursue entrepreneurial goals they were putting on hold for fear of being left uninsured.

 

[werepossum]

You're right I did! lol, I didn't even notice.

Honestly, neither did I until it was pointed out.

 

[fskimospy]

To quote Bureaucrat #1 from Futurama: "You are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

It is technically correct that working fewer hours in inherently bad but focusing on that for your counterpoint seems to be, intentionally or not, ignoring the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that working fewer hours because of the taxes and disincentives in the ACA is inherently bad. Working in legislative analysis like I do one of the first things you learn is that you can't read a statute in isolation, you have to read it in full context. The same thing applies here, to focus on the literal statement that working less is inherently bad ignores the fact that the statement is being made in the context of a specific tax/disincentive scheme, so the statement should be analyzed in the context of that scheme.

Well I would again say that such am argument simply wasn't being made.

I would also say that to the best of my knowledge the CBO did not break out how much of the decline in working hours would come from structural changes vs tax and income incentive changes.

If you would like to have a discussion about a different method of qualification, etc I would find that to be a very interesting discussion.

 

[michal1980]

So Obamacare gives some people who were stuck at a dead end job to keep their insurance an option of leaving work. Of course that doesn't eliminate the position, so someone else will be hired to fill it. Net impact on employment is zero, and probably a net positive if some of those who leave jobs pursue entrepreneurial goals they were putting on hold for fear of being left uninsured.

thats not what the CBO says.

 

[rudeguy]

thats not what the CBO says.

but its a way for his mind to spin it


No offense but ignorance like that is what is making ACA so terrible. Everyone refused to admit there were issues before the changes took place. Everyone refused to admit the website had flaws. Everyone refused to admit the wording made it so people would lose their plans. The current policy of deny, deny, deny, deny then blame has to stop.

Put the stupid politics aside. This law obviously is going to affect even those that it wasn't intended to. It needs to be fixed before the real shitstorm hits. Who cares whose fault it is? Who cares who voted for what? Just make it so people don't lose their jobs, make it so people don't get cut down to part time, make it so families can still afford to eat.

If you have to think partisan, just imagine what heroes your party will be when they prevent a disaster! Think of how inconsiderate you will make the other guys look. Think of Bozo the Clown masterbating furiously...I don't care what you have to think about, just think about something that makes you get inspired to fix this.

We are what, 10 months away from the employer mandate? Do we really want to find out what happens when tens (hundreds?) of millions of people's health insurance is in danger? Do we want to find out what companies really will do when they have to chose between paying wages and paying insurance?

 

[theeedude]

thats not what the CBO says.

You mean it's not what Fox News says the CBO says, since you didn't read the report, which says:

In addition, reduced incentives to work attributable to the Affordable Care Act
(ACA)—with most of the impact arising from new subsidies
for health insurance purchased through exchanges—
will have a larger negative effect on participation toward
the end of that period. On the other hand, the improvement
in employment prospects will draw some people
who have left the labor force back into it.

As an uninformed Fox News believer, you are confusing labor participation with employment.

 

[TerryMathews]

I know I keep asking this, but nobody will give an answer. Would you support tying other forms of insurance or necessary goods/services to employment in order to further increase the labor participation rate? If the decrease in labor participation due to no longer needing full time employment for insurance is bad, does that mean that if the US had a universal health plan that it would be a good thing to remove it in order to increase the labor participation rate?

Nobody seems able or willing to answer these questions.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did away with the Social Security benefit floor. Right now, as long as you work the minimum 10 years, you get at least the minimum regardless of what you paid in.

If Social Security were an IRA instead of a pyramid scheme, you could say the yield was higher the less you contributed. There is a number where your yield is >100%.

What's the point to this? There will be a drastic future financial consequence to encouraging people to earn less during their working years: Social Security will have to cover a larger portion of their benefit from funds they did not contribute.

I would support tying all government subsidies to workforce participation. If the government gets into the auto insurance game let me know k?

 

[Jhhnn]

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did away with the Social Security benefit floor. Right now, as long as you work the minimum 10 years, you get at least the minimum regardless of what you paid in.

If Social Security were an IRA instead of a pyramid scheme, you could say the yield was higher the less you contributed. There is a number where your yield is >100%.

What's the point to this? There will be a drastic future financial consequence to encouraging people to earn less during their working years: Social Security will have to cover a larger portion of their benefit from funds they did not contribute.

I would support tying all government subsidies to workforce participation. If the government gets into the auto insurance game let me know k?

Please.The minimum SS payment is $800/mo. Recipients of that alone are eligible for a lot of other benefits because they're impoverished. Does it matter which govt pocket provides the money to allow them a meager existence in this land of plenty? Or should we not allow that based on some sense of right wing self righteousness?

You're not quite getting it about the whole working less hours bit. The capitalist system currently supplies a deficit of paying work. When a person moves out of a job, another moves right in, meaning the total amount of money going into SS doesn't change. The system retains liquidity. The guy who moved out doesn't need the SS credits, but the guy coming in probably does.

You also fail to recognize that it's mostly late middle age middle class Americans who'll go for this, who'll make a financial sacrifice in order to retire.

 

[glenn1]

Please.The minimum SS payment is $800/mo. Recipients of that alone are eligible for a lot of other benefits because they're impoverished. Does it matter which govt pocket provides the money to allow them a meager existence in this land of plenty? Or should we not allow that based on some sense of right wing self righteousness?

You're not quite getting it about the whole working less hours bit. The capitalist system currently supplies a deficit of paying work. When a person moves out of a job, another moves right in, meaning the total amount of money going into SS doesn't change. The system retains liquidity. The guy who moved out doesn't need the SS credits, but the guy coming in probably does.

You also fail to recognize that it's mostly late middle age middle class Americans who'll go for this, who'll make a financial sacrifice in order to retire.

Instead of an annuity payment stream, provide the "meager existence in this land of plenty" as in-kind benefits. Quonset huts and government food rations can be had for cheaper than $9,600/year and avoidance of poor-shaming is a luxury good that taxpayers should not to be forced to provide.

 

[Jhhnn]

Instead of an annuity payment stream, provide the "meager existence in this land of plenty" as in-kind benefits. Quonset huts and government food rations can be had for cheaper than $9,600/year and avoidance of poor-shaming is a luxury good that taxpayers should not to be forced to provide.

In communist Russia, they at least created apartments for all the people their system impoverished. When our system does the same, all they get is quonset huts?

Poverty in this Country is a systemic feature, not the result of any moral failing on the part of poor people. It's a moral failing of their leadership & their fellow citizens.

Have this framed, display it as your motto, your moral compass-

I got mine! Fuck you!

 

[Matt1970]

In communist Russia, they at least created apartments for all the people their system impoverished. When our system does the same, all they get is quonset huts?

Poverty in this Country is a systemic feature, not the result of any moral failing on the part of poor people. It's a moral failing of their leadership & their fellow citizens.

Have this framed, display it as your motto, your moral compass-

Move to Russia then.

 

[glenn1]

In communist Russia, they at least created apartments for all the people their system impoverished. When our system does the same, all they get is quonset huts?

Poverty in this Country is a systemic feature, not the result of any moral failing on the part of poor people. It's a moral failing of their leadership & their fellow citizens.

Have this framed, display it as your motto, your moral compass- I got mine, fuck you!

At least I had the initiative to get it in the first place. Better than your motto "just take the shit from that guy, fuck him."

 

[sactoking]

Well I would again say that such am argument simply wasn't being made.

I would also say that to the best of my knowledge the CBO did not break out how much of the decline in working hours would come from structural changes vs tax and income incentive changes.

If you would like to have a discussion about a different method of qualification, etc I would find that to be a very interesting discussion.

I would refer you to post 29 wherein I expressed my amusement at the exploding heads. In that post I quoted a CBO passage 3 times (in part and in whole) that spoke to the issue. CBO didn't quantify the effect if structural v incentive changes but they did say:

CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net,
by about 1.5 percent to 2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.

In context they are pretty clearly stating that the qualitative majority of change in labor supply is due to incentive changes and not structural changes.

I will state again that the Republican talking point of "OMG fewer jobs!" is misleading. I will also state again that the Democrat talking point of "Job mobility!" is also misleading.

If "job mobility" were a true driving factor we would not be seeing a reduction in hours worked. That I can leave my dead-end 40 hour/week job without fear of losing my insurance to get another 40 hour/week dead-end job results in no loss of work hours to the economy. That's one form of "job mobility." That I can leave my dead-end 40 hour/week job to start my own business without fear of losing my insurance should also result in little if any change to the economy, since I am still working. If anything it should increase the number of hours worked since I am still working 40 hours and my old 40 hour job will be filled. That's another form of "job mobility."

If "job mobility" were a true driving factor then the only ways changing jobs would result in a loss of hours to the economy are:
1. Employee moves from Job A to Job B at equivalent (40) hours. Job A is eliminated. Now the two jobs contribute 40 combined hours to the economy instead of 80;
2. Employee moves from Job A to Job B at reduced hours; or
3. Employee leaves Job A to start a business and Job A is eliminated.
Are there other general scenarios?

I think it's safe to surmise that the scenario outlined in the CBO report is none of these three things. Under scenario 1 we would have to accept that 2% of all current jobs are not needed. After all, why would an employer eliminate a needed position that became vacant. Are we willing to accept that coming off of record unemployment, when several states are still years away from recovering, that 1 in every 50 jobs (on net!) isn't needed? I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Scenario 2 only works if Job B was at equivalent hours to Job A prior to the hire. That would mean that Employer B would be part of the reduction in hours. Yet the CBO tells us that demand for labor will remain strong (even pulling some people back into the labor force) and any weakness in demand in certain sectors is likely to be reflected in wages and not job equivalents. I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Scenario 3 only works, again, if there is reduced demand which we know to not be the case. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

OH MY GOD WHAT'S THAT OVER THERE!?!? (*switches goblets*)

No, the unfortunate message in the CBO report is that the ACA will be the impetus for tens or hundreds of thousands of workers to decide it's not worth it any more. Why work 2000 hours a year, pay taxes, pay for health insurance, and not see your kids when you can maintain the same standard of living working 1500 or 1000 hours? If SNAP, TANF, WIC, CHIP, Medicaid, premium tax credits, and cost-sharing reductions can leave you with just as much money and twice the free time, why not? If I choose to work less then my employer isn't cutting jobs (which the CBO reports isn't happening). If I choose to work less or not at all then I don't increase employment or unemployment (which the CBO reports won't be increasing). If I'm affluent and my means aren't stretched the ACA doesn't give me the marginal incentive to not work (which the CBO reports is correct).

The CBO report says those at the tax/disincentive margins (low-income persons) will voluntarily reduce their employment and maintain their standard of living. How will that happen if not for expensive public assistance programs?

A nebulous concept like "universal healthcare" likely wouldn't have these disincentives. Is the care doled out in Canada or the UK income- or means-tested? A quick Google indicates 'no' but I could be wrong. Assuming I'm right, these systems wouldn't have the marginal disincentive to not work. (Under the ACA earning $1 more can push you out of a CSR tier, greatly increasing your deductible and OOP costs.) That's not to say that universal healthcare doesn't have its own disincentives (why work at all when you pay the same amount?).

 

[stormkroe]

That's not what I asked in any way. Do you believe that it is a good thing as a nationwide policy to repeal universal health care if it caused people to work more hours to get the same health care, all else being equal?

Yes. See? That was easy 🙂
As an employee, my skill level (usually) determines my rate, my hours-worked being the multiplier to determine my total compensation. I have to work enough to afford my health coverage the same way I have to work enough to afford my vacation to Mexico. The cost is the same to the employer if the employee receives a $2/hr raise or insurance that costs $80/week.
As an employer (that's me), employees who work full time are worth SUBSTANTIALLY more than part timers for many reasons. The most basic being that they are fundamentally less lazy. More days on the job mean they train faster. Having them 5 days in a row makes job planning easier and more efficient, etc. I short, they make the company more money and, thus, can make more capital for themselves.
On a related note, I've lived in Canada for over 9 years now, and I have to say that if our new goal in America is to mimic their health care, may God have mercy on us. Not only is this 'free' health care so expensive because people abuse it, but the care itself is horrible. I offer health insurance to my workers that costs a lot and the coverages don't seem worth what I'm paying. I just waited 8 months for an MR I session, and am on month 9 waiting for a nuclear dye scan.
Hope this is helpful.

 

[rudeguy]

In communist Russia, they at least created apartments for all the people their system impoverished. When our system does the same, all they get is quonset huts?

Poverty in this Country is a systemic feature, not the result of any moral failing on the part of poor people. It's a moral failing of their leadership & their fellow citizens.

Have this framed, display it as your motto, your moral compass-

You know what's really funny?

All the left wing idiots keep using that phrase. "Fuck you, I got mine." However, those left wing morons seem to be the ones who epitomize that the most. I see the people to the right and to the middle wanting to help these people while the left wants to find ways to keep them dependant and dictate what they can and cannot have.

It really does add to the perception that the left wing nutjobs on here really have no other platform than hate mongering.

Handouts have never fixed a poverty issue. They have only made those issues worse. Strong families and strong communities are the key but they are also the greatest fear of the left. "What will happen once these people can think for themselves? What will happen when we no longer control how much these people get to eat? What will happen when they find out that its us that has been fucking them for 50 years?"

Go find a new strawman to build. Your others are old and busted.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

OK, I can understand that, but is it a cause or an effect? It seems to me that as long as we have a surplus of labor compared to demand, we have (roughly) maximized production. Right now we have a substantial labor surplus, so I would think lowering the participation rate simply lowers unemployment without significantly affecting GDP. On the other hand, if demand for goods and services substantially increases, that will increase the GDP, increase demand for labor, and potentially increase the labor participation rate (i.e., an effect, not a cause). What am I missing?

Increased government spending needed to support the 2.3m people who figured out that they were better off not working. This ultimately results in additional tax burden for those working which takes money out of the public sector and negatively impacts GDP growth.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would refer you to post 29 wherein I expressed my amusement at the exploding heads. In that post I quoted a CBO passage 3 times (in part and in whole) that spoke to the issue. CBO didn't quantify the effect if structural v incentive changes but they did say:

In context they are pretty clearly stating that the qualitative majority of change in labor supply is due to incentive changes and not structural changes.

I will state again that the Republican talking point of "OMG fewer jobs!" is misleading. I will also state again that the Democrat talking point of "Job mobility!" is also misleading.

If "job mobility" were a true driving factor we would not be seeing a reduction in hours worked. That I can leave my dead-end 40 hour/week job without fear of losing my insurance to get another 40 hour/week dead-end job results in no loss of work hours to the economy. That's one form of "job mobility." That I can leave my dead-end 40 hour/week job to start my own business without fear of losing my insurance should also result in little if any change to the economy, since I am still working. If anything it should increase the number of hours worked since I am still working 40 hours and my old 40 hour job will be filled. That's another form of "job mobility."

If "job mobility" were a true driving factor then the only ways changing jobs would result in a loss of hours to the economy are:
1. Employee moves from Job A to Job B at equivalent (40) hours. Job A is eliminated. Now the two jobs contribute 40 combined hours to the economy instead of 80;
2. Employee moves from Job A to Job B at reduced hours; or
3. Employee leaves Job A to start a business and Job A is eliminated.
Are there other general scenarios?

I think it's safe to surmise that the scenario outlined in the CBO report is none of these three things. Under scenario 1 we would have to accept that 2% of all current jobs are not needed. After all, why would an employer eliminate a needed position that became vacant. Are we willing to accept that coming off of record unemployment, when several states are still years away from recovering, that 1 in every 50 jobs (on net!) isn't needed? I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Scenario 2 only works if Job B was at equivalent hours to Job A prior to the hire. That would mean that Employer B would be part of the reduction in hours. Yet the CBO tells us that demand for labor will remain strong (even pulling some people back into the labor force) and any weakness in demand in certain sectors is likely to be reflected in wages and not job equivalents. I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Scenario 3 only works, again, if there is reduced demand which we know to not be the case. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

OH MY GOD WHAT'S THAT OVER THERE!?!? (*switches goblets*)

No, the unfortunate message in the CBO report is that the ACA will be the impetus for tens or hundreds of thousands of workers to decide it's not worth it any more. Why work 2000 hours a year, pay taxes, pay for health insurance, and not see your kids when you can maintain the same standard of living working 1500 or 1000 hours? If SNAP, TANF, WIC, CHIP, Medicaid, premium tax credits, and cost-sharing reductions can leave you with just as much money and twice the free time, why not? If I choose to work less then my employer isn't cutting jobs (which the CBO reports isn't happening). If I choose to work less or not at all then I don't increase employment or unemployment (which the CBO reports won't be increasing). If I'm affluent and my means aren't stretched the ACA doesn't give me the marginal incentive to not work (which the CBO reports is correct).

The CBO report says those at the tax/disincentive margins (low-income persons) will voluntarily reduce their employment and maintain their standard of living. How will that happen if not for expensive public assistance programs?

A nebulous concept like "universal healthcare" likely wouldn't have these disincentives. Is the care doled out in Canada or the UK income- or means-tested? A quick Google indicates 'no' but I could be wrong. Assuming I'm right, these systems wouldn't have the marginal disincentive to not work. (Under the ACA earning $1 more can push you out of a CSR tier, greatly increasing your deductible and OOP costs.) That's not to say that universal healthcare doesn't have its own disincentives (why work at all when you pay the same amount?).

Meh. I think you're reading a lot into it, particularly wrt where & what the margins involved really are. I think you somehow believe that necessary employment will go unfulfilled even in the face of an enormous pool of unemployed labor.

The people who will find the proposition the most attractive, I think, are older, more affluent (not most affluent) & involved in a stable relationship. It will allow one partner to retire. It will also allow a job opening for somebody else who may well need it more. Many more senior Americans, I think, would retire if their cashflow balance were only somewhat better, and ACA subsidies provide that. They'll retire when the house is paid off, a few years early. They'll downsize their domicile in some cases to do that. They'll switch to part time. They'll do a variety of things to trade income for leisure.

 

[glenn1]

Meh. I think you're reading a lot into it, particularly wrt where & what the margins involved really are. I think you somehow believe that necessary employment will go unfulfilled even in the face of an enormous pool of unemployed labor.

The people who will find the proposition the most attractive, I think, are older, more affluent (not most affluent) & involved in a stable relationship. It will allow one partner to retire. It will also allow a job opening for somebody else who may well need it more. Many more senior Americans, I think, would retire if their cashflow balance were only somewhat better, and ACA subsidies provide that. They'll retire when the house is paid off, a few years early. They'll downsize their domicile in some cases to do that. They'll switch to part time. They'll do a variety of things to trade income for leisure.

Wow, progressives are now considering subsidization of the affluent as being a benefit of Obamacare. Who knew that was part of their plan all along?

 

[Jhhnn]

You know what's really funny?

All the left wing idiots keep using that phrase. "Fuck you, I got mine." However, those left wing morons seem to be the ones who epitomize that the most. I see the people to the right and to the middle wanting to help these people while the left wants to find ways to keep them dependant and dictate what they can and cannot have.

It really does add to the perception that the left wing nutjobs on here really have no other platform than hate mongering.

Handouts have never fixed a poverty issue. They have only made those issues worse. Strong families and strong communities are the key but they are also the greatest fear of the left. "What will happen once these people can think for themselves? What will happen when we no longer control how much these people get to eat? What will happen when they find out that its us that has been fucking them for 50 years?"

Go find a new strawman to build. Your others are old and busted.

Imagine me opening & closing my hand like a duckbill, saying Wah-wah-wah-wah.

The truth is that we, as a society, are dependent on each other, particularly given the high level of specialization. If this lesser depression taught us anything, it should be that we can't depend on the Job Creators entirely, given their detachment from the rest of society.

Really. Economic events that have devastated the middle & working classes have only left them richer, in case you hadn't noticed. Not that they have any need to be richer, at all, devoting only a small part of income to lifestyle expenses. If half the wealth & income of the top .1% disappeared tomorrow, they'd live just the same as they do now.

I do love the whole attribution of "wanting to help these people" when what's broadcast here by the faction you mention is derision. Review this thread & others in a similar vein- what you'll find is blaming the victims, not the perps, at least by the self satisfied & oh so self righteous members of the Teahad.

They don't want to help anybody but themselves, which is completely obvious to non-indoctrinated non-believers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wow, progressives are now considering subsidization of the affluent as being a benefit of Obamacare. Who knew that was part of their plan all along?

Heh. It's one way to open up the job market for the less affluent. You have a better idea? Like what? Like raving right wing non-sequiters of denial?

If your idols, the uber wealthy, the job creators, had a different set of incentives other than pure greed, it might be different.

 

[rudeguy]

Imagine me opening & closing my hand like a duckbill, saying Wah-wah-wah-wah.

The truth is that we, as a society, are dependent on each other, particularly given the high level of specialization. If this lesser depression taught us anything, it should be that we can't depend on the Job Creators entirely, given their detachment from the rest of society.

Really. Economic events that have devastated the middle & working classes have only left them richer, in case you hadn't noticed. Not that they have any need to be richer, at all, devoting only a small part of income to lifestyle expenses. If half the wealth & income of the top .1% disappeared tomorrow, they'd live just the same as they do now.

I do love the whole attribution of "wanting to help these people" when what's broadcast here by the faction you mention is derision. Review this thread & others in a similar vein- what you'll find is blaming the victims, not the perps, at least by the self satisfied & oh so self righteous members of the Teahad.

They don't want to help anybody but themselves, which is completely obvious to non-indoctrinated non-believers.

I am very, very impressed.

4 paragraphs and you didn't say anything. That is really quite a talent. Can I ask you a direct question? Do you think that welfare is the way to end poverty?

 

[TerryMathews]

Imagine me opening & closing my hand like a duckbill, saying Wah-wah-wah-wah.

TIL Jhhnn is Pam from Archer

 

[Lithium381]

Imagine me opening & closing my hand like a duckbill, saying Wah-wah-wah-wah.

The truth is that we, as a society, are dependent on each other, particularly given the high level of specialization. If this lesser depression taught us anything, it should be that we can't depend on the Job Creators entirely, given their detachment from the rest of society.

Really. Economic events that have devastated the middle & working classes have only left them richer, in case you hadn't noticed. Not that they have any need to be richer, at all, devoting only a small part of income to lifestyle expenses. If half the wealth & income of the top .1% disappeared tomorrow, they'd live just the same as they do now.

I do love the whole attribution of "wanting to help these people" when what's broadcast here by the faction you mention is derision. Review this thread & others in a similar vein- what you'll find is blaming the victims, not the perps, at least by the self satisfied & oh so self righteous members of the Teahad.

They don't want to help anybody but themselves, which is completely obvious to non-indoctrinated non-believers.

that's quite a blanket statement. I want to help people VOLUNTARILY. . not through force. everytime a 'progressive' has a great idea, the whole country is on the hook for trying it out. . . !

2 Cor 9:6-9

6 Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously. 7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:
“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor;
their righteousness endures forever.”[a]