Watch Steve Moore Demolish the Argument for Raising the Minimum Wage
44% of US companies considering dropping insurance coverage of current workers due to Obamacare
If you receive health insurance benefits through your job, it might be a good idea to start looking for other alternatives. According to a study by Duke University, 44% of US companies are considering dropping the health insurance plans of their current employees as a direct result of Obamacare.
From The Washington Examiner:
Adding to a devastating CBO report of how Obamacare could damage the economy, a Duke University survey of top companies found that 44 percent are considering reducing health benefits to current employees due to Obamacare, confirming the fears of millions of American workers.
In its December survey of chief financial officers around the country, Duke also found that nearly half are “reluctant to hire full-time employers because of the Affordable Care Act.”
And 40 percent are considering shifting to part-time workers and others will hire fewer workers of fire some to avoid the costs of the program.
What’s more, they said in the study, “One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.”
Without the law, the CFOs told Duke that they would hire more full-time workers.
This is devastating, folks. Seriously devastating.
It’s amazing to think that there are still those who don’t believe that Obamacare is and has been devastating to the economy.
The law that was supposedly designed to reduce the number of uninsured, will most definitely increase it. How’s that for irony?
Obama making poor people poorer, poverty rate breaks 50-year record
In my opinion, the most frustrating thing about the state of politics in America isn’t corruption or the lack of principle among the electorate, it is ignorance. It is that so many obvious straw men arguments and cliches perpetuated by pop culture, the media and politicians are accepted as pertinent fact. It is the willingness of the average person to simply believe lies, regardless of the evidence.
For example, facts show unequivocally that crime rates, especially violent crime, goes down when more people have access to weapons for personal protection. But anti-gun activists, the media and the average, uninformed voter, believes (or preaches) the exact opposite. So when someone campaigns for gun control, they are literally campaigning for more crime.
Perhaps the biggest of these political lies is that government welfare is a form of charity which actually helps poor people. When in reality, much like gun control, the opposite is true.
From The Washington Times:
Fifty years after President Johnson started a $20 trillion taxpayer-funded war on poverty, the overall percentage of impoverished people in the U.S. has declined only slightly and the poor have lost ground under President Obama.
Aides said Mr. Obama doesn’t plan to commemorate the anniversary Wednesday of Johnson’s speech in 1964, which gave rise to Medicaid, Head Start and a broad range of other federal anti-poverty programs. The president’s only public event Tuesday was a plea for Congress to approve extended benefits for the long-term unemployed, another reminder of the persistent economic troubles during Mr. Obama’s five years in office.
“What I think the American people are really looking for in 2014 is just a little bit of stability,” Mr. Obama said.
Although the president often rails against income inequality in America, his policies have had little impact overall on poverty. A record 47 million Americans receive food stamps, about 13 million more than when he took office.
The poverty rate has stood at 15 percent for three consecutive years, the first time that has happened since the mid-1960s. The poverty rate in 1965 was 17.3 percent; it was 12.5 percent in 2007, before the Great Recession.
Twenty. Trillion. Dollars.
There are a couple of things that should be noted here. First of all, while poverty rates might be seemingly stagnant, the definition of poverty today is different than what it used to be and technology has done wonders in raising the standard of living for virtually everyone — even those in poverty. Also, economies ebb and flow which, in turn, causes poverty rates to fluctuate.
But do not make the mistake of thinking that poverty will be eliminated by government. This is utterly illogical. As with anything else, when you subsidize it, you get more of it. Forcibly taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven’t does nothing to incentivize productivity or prosperity. Rather, this institutionalizes poverty. In short, when you pay people not to work, they will not work. It has the exact opposite of its intended effect.
Our good friend Benjamin Franklin had good something good to say about this:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”