Posted on 02/20/2014 9:16:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Remember: We actually pay people to report on stuff like this.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while not exactly non-partisan, doesn’t always see eye to eye with either party in D.C.
Yes, sometimes the effects of proposed Democrat economic policies are so obvious that even the CBO is forced to agree with Republicans.
The CBO just reported that the Democrats plan to raise the minimum wage would cost between 500,00 to a million jobs. Initially.
No. Duh.
At least that many jobs; really, probably more.
“The CBO analysts said their estimate of employment losses was approximate,” says Fox News. “They said the actual impact could range from a very slight employment reduction to a loss of one million workers.”
These are the same economic clowns who put that bright red nose on Obamacare telling us all that it would balance the budget, bring peace to the Middle East, and provide free birth control for Sandra Fluke.
Getting past the fact that I personally know of at least seven people who have told me they’d privately pay for Fluke’s birth control if it meant she’d never become part of a breeding pair, the clowns were recently forced to update their Obamacare estimates saying, well, gee guys: Obamacare is going to cost a lot of jobs.
How many? 2.5 million. Initially.
“Initially” is a big point with any Obama policy.
Because it always seems that those “initial” estimates by the CBO of the economic consequences of an Obama policy are much rosier than the reality.
And the reality of any Obama policy is usually postponed until after Obama’s out of office.
You think things are bad now?
Don’t worry, you’ll clean up later.
After he leaves.
Who's the clown in charge of this economy anyway?
“The report was released as the Democrat-controlled Senate,” writes Fox, “prepares to debate an Obama-backed proposal to gradually increase the $7.25 hourly minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016.”
So we have the satisfaction of knowing that at a time when the private sector is struggling to create jobs, Obama will guarantee it will get harder for them rather than easier.
And make no mistake: for all the benefit this will give some people, there are real people who will lose their jobs as a consequence. Small businesses will shutdown, with devastating consequences to owners and employees. Some small businesses won’t start at all as a result because owners will have a tougher time making the financing work with increased wage costs.
“This is a slippery slope that could absolutely cause me to shut down and force me into bankruptcy,” Charlene Conway owner of Carousel Family Fun Centers in Fairhaven and Whitman, Mass. told the New York Times.
“I’m not going to pay a 14-year-old $9 an hour with no experience, maturity or work ethic,” she said. “What this does is eliminate the opportunity for young people to get started in the work force,” with her now hiring older people instead of young people for jobs.
Is it worth it for gains many say are illusory or at least questionable?
“Hundreds of thousands of low-skill workers are trying to find a job but can’t,” Michael Strain, a labor economist with the American Enterprise Institute, writes at NRO. “Is it really the right time to raise the cost of hiring and make it harder for businesses to hire them? Some studies say a higher minimum wage will lower employment; some say employment will remain unchanged. Shouldn’t we err on the side of caution?”
Caution? For Obama?
Why in the world would he ever exercise caution?
He won’t have to clean up after himself.
He never does.
Remember: We pay him to do stuff like this.
The CBO can only analyze the data they are given. Then they bend the statement within a range that is most favorable to the democrats politically. When the range looks bad, they usually add a qualifier to their number.
So... “It will cost 500K to 1 million jobs give or take a million.”
He's Focused Like A Laser 
Private sector employees PRODUCE tax money. Government sector employees CONSUME tax money. When there are too many government employees or too few private sector employees, then there is not enough tax money. The government then has to borrow money to pay the government employees. The government then has to pay interest on the money it has borrowed to pay government employees. So, we end up in a vicious circle of borrowing more money to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed to pay government employees.
Normally, we have the Republicans in charge for a few years to try and bring some sanity to the government budget. For whatever reasons, President Bush did not attempt to bring sanity to the federal budget. This means that since Bill Clinton took office in 1992, we have not had a President who tried to bring sanity to the federal budget. That is 22 years. That is too long to have such irresponsibility and thievery going on with the federal budget.
Can anyone here tell me the ‘poverty level’ for one person? Two? Three?
I am trying to do some calculations to prove Harry reid is a liar.
Figures don’t lie—but LIARS sure know how to figure!!
Thanks.
Google is your friend. Here ya go...
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html
Does that table represent gross or net household income?
(I know, they don’t pay taxes)
Shouldn’t that sign say “I was GIVEN a Nobel Peace Prize”?
People with jobs and good bank accounts don't need 'Rat bennies like Obamaphones and food stamps and 50 extra weeks of meagre unemployment comp.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.