|Mr. Cyrus Pailey|
John Boehner and his cohorts of republican gangs love to label Obama as being socialist and food stamp president, because of this twisted idea that, the president is more into giving handouts than empowering people, or giving them a reason to elevate out of poverty.
To the ordinary guy out there that’s working hard and trying to stay above waters, these continuous attacks and talking points seems rational, but taking a closer look at the fairness aspect, Republicans are the ones supporting this draconian food stamps policy, by economically putting people in queue for handouts.
Here’s the real hypocrisy, when President Obama suggested that we raise the minimum wage, John Boehner went on record by saying he would preferred committing suicide than watch wages increase from $7.25 to $10.10., almost pathetic in a nature coming out of the mouth of the speaker, the former janitor that always share tears when the president talk about his past live.
Boehner, for the most part, along with his band of brothers from the right, were quick to pounced on a report by the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), saying that raising the minimum wage would eliminate anywhere between 500,000 to a million jobs in the long term, and for an economy wheeling from a downturn, losing jobs should be the last thing on the agenda.
But here’s the deal, Boehner only read into the report partially, instead of getting the real economics implicated and added benefits minimum wage increase would have on the overall economy, both short and long term. The very same report stated that the impact would be massive; and here are some raw facts to back such claims
• Once the increases and decreases in income for all workers are taken into account, overall real income would rise by $2 billion.
• Real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).
• Families whose income would have been between one and three times the poverty threshold would receive, on net, $12 billion in additional real income. About $2 billion, on net, would go to families whose income would have been between three and six times the poverty threshold.
• Real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families, whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more, lowering their average family income by 0.4 percent.
To conclude, I personally think the speaker on this issue is protecting corporate interest instead of looking out for the common man, because the argument here’s written in stone from a common sense perspective. You don’t need a budget analyst to dissect these numbers. Just look at the ROI for undertaking such sound policy and the shock-wave it could send throughout the overall economy.
Mr. Boehner, you sucks……