CBO - Obamacare Will Kill 800,000 jobs

[red states rule]

Nancy Pelosi was right once again. Obamacare had to be passed so we could find out what was in it

Here is more evidence as to why Obamacare has to go

Any comments from the left wing members of the board and supporters of Obamacare?


<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jskjci1ZL9Q&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jskjci1ZL9Q&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[logroller]

What jobs would be lost? Those which are essential, or those of paper-pushing cronies that only drive the cost of healthcare up?

I'm reading the monday WSJ and it says corporate profits are up, but jobs aren't returning. Business which cut jobs out of necessity are enjoying their profits again and don't want to reduce them fearing regulations may increase. And when they say "regulations", they mean mandated benefits to employees. Fiscally, good call; but it's the same logic that drove banks to use bailout money to increase cash reserves and payout executive bonuses. Classic top-down strategy works for corporations; why not government too?

[red states rule]

What jobs would be lost? Those which are essential, or those of paper-pushing cronies that only drive the cost of healthcare up?

I'm reading the monday WSJ and it says corporate profits are up, but jobs aren't returning. Business which cut jobs out of necessity are enjoying their profits again and don't want to reduce them fearing regulations may increase. And when they say "regulations", they mean mandated benefits to employees. Fiscally, good call; but it's the same logic that drove banks to use bailout money to increase cash reserves and payout executive bonuses. Classic top-down strategy works for corporations; why not government too?

It is the COST of adding workers that is keeping companies from hiring.

If someone is going to add a worker there must not only be a demand for the labor but it must also be cost effective for the employer

Obamacare adds a huge cost to adding a worker

Here is an excellent op ed written by a small business owner




With unemployment just under 10% and companies sitting on their cash, you would think that sooner or later job growth would take off. I think it's going to be later—much later. Here's why.

Meet Sally (not her real name; details changed to preserve privacy). Sally is a terrific employee, and she happens to be the median person in terms of base pay among the 83 people at my little company in New Jersey, where we provide audio systems for use in educational, commercial and industrial settings. She's been with us for over 15 years. She's a high school graduate with some specialized training. She makes $59,000 a year—on paper. In reality, she makes only $44,000 a year because $15,000 is taken from her thanks to various deductions and taxes, all of which form the steep, sad slope between gross and net pay.

Before that money hits her bank, it is reduced by the $2,376 she pays as her share of the medical and dental insurance that my company provides. And then the government takes its due. She pays $126 for state unemployment insurance, $149 for disability insurance and $856 for Medicare. That's the small stuff. New Jersey takes $1,893 in income taxes. The federal government gets $3,661 for Social Security and another $6,250 for income tax withholding. The roughly $13,000 taken from her by various government entities means that some 22% of her gross pay goes to Washington or Trenton. She's lucky she doesn't live in New York City, where the toll would be even higher.

Employing Sally costs plenty too. My company has to write checks for $74,000 so Sally can receive her nominal $59,000 in base pay. Health insurance is a big, added cost: While Sally pays nearly $2,400 for coverage, my company pays the rest—$9,561 for employee/spouse medical and dental. We also provide company-paid life and other insurance premiums amounting to $153. Altogether, company-paid benefits add $9,714 to the cost of employing Sally.

Then the federal and state governments want a little something extra. They take $56 for federal unemployment coverage, $149 for disability insurance, $300 for workers' comp and $505 for state unemployment insurance. Finally, the feds make me pay $856 for Sally's Medicare and $3,661 for her Social Security.

When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally's pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally's job each year.

Because my company has been conscripted by the government and forced to serve as a tax collector, we have lost control of a big chunk of our cost structure. Tax increases, whether cloaked as changes in unemployment or disability insurance, Medicare increases or in any other form can dramatically alter our financial situation. With government spending and deficits growing as fast as they have been, you know that more tax increases are coming—for my company, and even for Sally too.

Companies have also been pressed into serving as providers of health insurance. In a saner world, health insurance would be something that individuals buy for themselves and their families, just as they do with auto insurance. Now, adding to the insanity, there is ObamaCare

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409733776372738.html

[actsnoblemartin]

isnt a job a job, what does it matter what it is.

if 800 k lost, how is that a good thing :cheers2:

[red states rule]

isnt a job a job, what does it matter what it is.

if 800 k lost, how is that a good thing :cheers2:

Perhaps the left and supports of Obamacare think they will still be able to collect 3 years of unemployment and food stamps which - according to Nancy Pleosi - is the biggest stimulus available

Perhaps it would be better to kill off Obama's job and as many elected Dems on Capital Hill as posible in 2012

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly.

A job is a job,

the person collects a paycheck

pays taxes

and spends the income

losing 800,000 of any job is NOT a good thing

[red states rule]

exactly.

A job is a job,

the person collects a paycheck

pays taxes

and spends the income

losing 800,000 of any job is NOT a good thing

Please consider the number 800,000 is based on the info the DEMS gave the CBO - so the lost job number is probably at least TWICE the 800,000 number

[actsnoblemartin]

I would not be surprised :coffee:

[red states rule]

I would not be surprised :coffee:

Why would anyone be surprised at the failure of another Obama policy?

I am off to work soon and the question is how many Obama supporters jump in on this thread today to defend Obamacare and what the CBO said

[actsnoblemartin]

cbo = chief barrack obama supporter :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

have a nice day red

:)


Why would anyone be surprised at the failure of another Obama policy?

I am off to work soon and the question is how many Obama supporters jump in on this thread today to defend Obamacare and what the CBO said

[red states rule]

have a nice day red

:)

With the Obama economy and Obamanomics default on home mortgages is keeping me (and my entire department) working overtime

Take care Martin

[actsnoblemartin]

well atleast its doing good for some people

:salute:

[red states rule]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AU2vPm29J_4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>