Ponderable

Prog-style ‘cost analysis’ of extra births if 20 week abortion ban passes vs. DREAMers

By Doug Powers • October 4, 2017 04:26 AM
**Written by Doug Powers

Here are three headlines touting the economic benefits of providing permanent legal status to people who entered or were brought into the country illegally…

ABC News:




dreamers1-e1507082944544.jpg





Bloomberg View:




bloombergview-e1507083423918.jpg





Business Insider:




businessinsider1-e1507083703244.jpg





But hold on a minute! The arrival of more people isn’t always a boon to the economy. What if those “new arrivals” are domestic?

Well that’s a this CBO analysis of what happens if abortions after 20 weeks are banned:

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 36 would increase direct spending, primarily for Medicaid in order to cover the costs of additional births under the act. Because the number of abortions that would be averted due to the act is very uncertain, the extent of that additional Medicaid spending is also very uncertain. Depending on the number of additional births under H.R. 36, such Medicaid costs could range from about $65 million over the next 10 years to about $335 million over that period. Using an assumption that, under the act, about three-quarters of the abortions that would occur 20 weeks or more after fertilization under current law would instead occur earlier, and the remaining one-quarter would not occur so those pregnancies would be taken to term, CBO estimates that federal spending for Medicaid would rise by $175 million over the 2018-2027 period.

I can see the lefty ads already: “Support late term abortion and illegal immigration — don’t you care about the deficit?”
 
I must admit that overall those from the right have the advantage as far as being passionate about the issues that concern them. They have a constant manic intensity that the many on the left don't, that and righties fully buy into what they are told. They probably make great soldiers, football players and any other pursuit that requires unwavering blind allegiance. The, run through a brick wall if told to mentality.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I must admit that overall those from the right have the advantage as far as being passionate about the issues that concern them. They have a constant manic intensity that the many on the left don't, that and righties fully buy into what they are told. They probably make great soldiers, football players and any other pursuit that requires unwavering blind allegiance. The, run through a brick wall if told to mentality.
Click to expand...
So says the union rube.
 
Wez said:
What's wrong with private sector collective bargaining?
Click to expand...
They are thugs and the members have little say where their dues go.
Over paid and under worked.
I have an x union dude working with me and it isn't pretty to watch how slow this guy works.

Looks like a sinking ship.

About this result
[PDF]Union Membership In The United States - Bureau of Labor Statistics
https://www.bls.gov/.../union-membership.../union-membership-in-the-united-states.p...
  1. Cached
Sep 1, 2016 - During the same time, the number of all wage and salary workers grew from 88.3 million to 133.7 million. Consequently, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent in 1983 and declined to 11.1 percent in 2015. In 2009, there was a sharp decline in the number of workers overall and in the number of union members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top