Hey!! That's my line. Except you also need to call him a dumbass.
I'm sure anyone with half a mind is well aware that was you all along. Nice try, though.
Bis actually makes a point that I agree with (Obamacare = good intentions, poor implementation)
I'm glad to see you can think logically at least some of the time.
So less people having jobs is good for the economy.
Now you're not using any logic, because that's NOT what I said. You didn't follow it properly at all.
What I said in a nutshell is this: Consumer spending stimulates the economy. Consumer spending is driven by the middle class. So to stimulate the economy, you need to have more people in the middle class. That happens when there are more middle class jobs available, so businesses should be given incentives to create more of those jobs.
A possible unfortunate side effect of this is that businesses employing more full time workers would then employ less workers overall (as a full time worker could get more done than a part time worker, obviously, so you need less workers overall). The negative effects of this are mitigated because there will always be businesses (and even entire industries) who must rely on at least some part time workers, so there will still be part time jobs for most of these people.
Never did I equate less people with jobs as helping the economy. Not once. That's a conclusion you jumped to because you evidently didn't fully understand what was being discussed.
he didn't talk about what happens to all the extra unemployed people. Guess they're not important.
Actually, I DID talk about them. I said they would be able to find other part time jobs because of the need for some businesses (and even industries) to rely on part time employees, just as I repeated for you above and am doing again now.
If you're going to argue with someone, you really should make certain you read and understand what they're saying before making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.