Incredibly, the newly passed health care act includes subsidies for uninsured persons up to 400 percent of poverty, which is well above national average income. If it this provision is actually implemented, it means people in the upper one-third of the income distribution will be subsidizing health care for the lower two-thirds -- a wealth redistribution scheme gone mad.
No way. Congresses and State Legislatures will spend until they literally can not spend anymore. This article foolishly assumes that politicians will eventually do the math and find discipline. Wrong! If they can borrow, they will borrow, and if they can print money, they will print money - until the very last day before collapse.
History is very clear on this.
Headline would’ve been better if it had been “How the ‘Safety Net’ became a Hammock”. Random thoughts.
SnakeDoc
We have a lot of politicians who are well above the poverty line yet we have to pay them large pensions. I would like to see those stopped if they are independently wealthy. Take for example clinton he’s made millions yet we still have to pay him.
Then the congress people when they retire a lot of them make tons of money with insider trading, pretty much selling favors, etc. and yet we have to give them pensions.
After all shouldn’t whats good for the goose be good for the gander.
Why?
George W. Bush.
Compassionate Conservatism a.k.a, Corporate Conservatism, Corporatism.
He expanded “benefits” because it benefited Big Food, Walmart, and the others that get the money. They lobbied for it. It was not the “poor” who pushed this. Money was paid to politicians with an expectation for profitable return. It worked.
George W. Bush.
Compassionate Conservatism.
Guilty.
It’s not some Democrat conspiracy or some Ayn Randian-cult-like “consumers” group sucking off the “producers,”
but
George W. Bush.
How the safety net became a hammock
Would of been a better title