> >
> > Max, anyone? How about this claim that removing the cap will
> > reduce income
> > for 23+ mil families by an average of $9100? Even if it's irrelevant, it
> > sounds way off.
> >
>
> It does sound high (both the amount and the number affected),
> but not necessarily way off.
It should be explained we're talking here about families with more $40K+ cars than kids.
And, of course, a BIG chunk of that doesn't come from the average of such families, but from the upper subset with more $400K+ HOUSES than kids.
> Nobody's pushing an uncapping, so it's not something I need
> to investigate right now. Plus I'm against it, tho not for the same
> reasons as Heritage. Don't forget benefits are capped too.
> To some extent political support for the program hinges on
> current limits to the degree of implied redistribution. Now
> isn't a great time to test those limits, but I would say to defend
> the basic concept of the program.
What you can't walk and chew gum at the same time? It's ALWAYS a good time to stretch the limits, if only to counterbalance the extremism of the other side.
Otherwise, "defending the basic concept of the program" becomes the extreme left position, and cutting the baby in half becomes the sensible centrist position.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"