Worldwide Fast Food Strikes Today!

LOL wrote: Don't slow the Jazzer down now PS she is on a roll, those cleverly annotated charts are probably cherry-picked from the Huffy Puffy posts, but she won't post those original links.

There will be no inflation adjustment of the min wage or any tax code overhaul/simplification because it is better to use those "issues" as perpetual campaign slogans and political footballs, LOL Its so obvious but few seem to get it. Enjoy Forrest Gumps!

What part of "SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office" do you not understand?...

LadyJazzer wrote:

LOL wrote: Don't slow the Jazzer down now PS she is on a roll, those cleverly annotated charts are probably cherry-picked from the Huffy Puffy posts, but she won't post those original links.

There will be no inflation adjustment of the min wage or any tax code overhaul/simplification because it is better to use those "issues" as perpetual campaign slogans and political footballs, LOL Its so obvious but few seem to get it. Enjoy Forrest Gumps!

What part of "SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office" do you not understand?...

:Confused: So now the CBO is a valid source? Talk about cherry picking.

If Obama really cared about the minimum wage, he would have increased it when Pelosi was in charge of the House. He used Pelosi and Reid to pass ACA, why not increase minimum wages?
Or maybe BHO knows it is better to use the minimum wage as a hammer to bash Republicans than something he actually wants to see happen. And he knew increasing the minimum wage in 2009 would have hurt the recovery.

CBO is a Republican source when they can cook the numbers their way; and an invalid one when they can't... You obviously have me confused with someone who gives a flip..


Oh, wait, Fred... Do you mean THIS CBO?

FredHayek wrote: The non partisan CBO said raising minimum wages would cost jobs. So you think they are now part of the fact free echo chamber?

The "non-partisan CBO" that you point to as the source of job-loss?.... You mean THAT CBO? Is THAT the one you're "cherry-picking" the job numbers from?

Some are annotated charts from Flickr and photobucket, not CBO. Post your sources or are you too embarrassed?

The sources are there -- the CBO...I don't give a flying flip if you don't like them...

The numbers are the numbers... It's kind of like science:

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

The nice thing about non-partisan numbers is that they are true, whether or not you believe them.

LadyJazzer wrote: The nice thing about non-partisan numbers is that they are true, whether or not you believe them.

Actually you are quite incorrect there. Remember the "non-partisan" unemployment numbers that came out right before the 2012 presidential election? They weren't true and "fixed" after Obama was re-elected. Isn't that interesting? And anyone who stated the numbers didn't add up was labeled a partisan hack.

Everyone who said the numbers were fixed turned out to be a liar. The numbers turned out to be true.

Dang... You still don't get it. You still playing that "job truther" game? You really need to stop listening to RushLimburger and Jack Welch.

I think I will trust the New York Post versus your unpaid bloggers.

Yeah, I feel the same way about Drudge and Powerline blogs...

I'll believe the BLS .

LadyJazzer wrote: The sources are there -- the CBO...I don't give a flying flip if you don't like them...

The numbers are the numbers... It's kind of like science:

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” -- Neil deGrasse Tyson

The nice thing about non-partisan numbers is that they are true, whether or not you believe them.

And it's factually incorrect to say that the numbers are non-partisan from the CBO. What the CBO starts out with are partisan numbers that it must accept at face value and then attempt to render a neutral determination from those partisan numbers. The problem gets to be that when one starts out with flawed data the results are going to be flawed as a result. You remember the CBO report that said the (un)Affordable Care Act was going to cost less than $1 Trillion over 10 years, right? You remember how all the people who said those were cooked numbers were called crooks and liars, right? Well guess what, the true cost of the (un)Affordable Care Act is going to be in the neighborhood of $1.8 Trillion over 10 years, not less than $1 Trillion according to the same CBO that issued the original "non-partisan" estimate based on the partisan figures the Democrats in Congress gave them to work with initially.

When the CBO says it will cost 500K jobs to raise the minimum wage, that is a best case scenario based on the information given to them that they must accept at face value, not what is likely to happen in the real world. As with all things government, harm is underestimated while benefits are overestimated from official government "non-partisan" entities almost without exception. If the CBO is estimating that raising the minimum wage is only going to cost the economy 500K jobs you can bet that figure is off by roughly half just like the cost of the (un)Affordable Care Act was, or the cost of the next generation fighter, or how many jobs were going to be created or saved by a nearly $1 Trillion stimulus program or Medicare or any federal government program or action you care to name. Has the CBO been anywhere close to accurate in any of the reports it issues based on the partisan numbers they are forced to work with? Serious question.