http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhtJMDEziKnrRbaAvffgyHbsy6IX?qid=20070817070946AAkVg71
Yes we have less of a welfare state than we did before - though the top two candidates from one party have long opposed the policy shifts that have led to this result.
What we've done is reversed the vicious cycle - - the government's game of musical chairs with jobs - - taking the dollar I would have spent on a widget or invested in ACME widget company, funneling it through a bureaucracy that employs some campaign staffer's brother-in-law and then doling out 25 cents six months later to some guy who used to be on the 3rd shift at ACME when ACME had a third shift, which it would still have if people like me had bought those widgets.
But in the long run, financially, to maintain a welfare state, doesn't it need to be the case that most people aren't clients or potential clients - are well off enough to support a welfare state for a small minority?
2007-08-17
05:30:28
·
4 answers
·
asked by
truthisback
3
in
Politics