We have seen this happen with welfare, food stamps and what, in my area, are called Obama phones(free cell phones to those who claim that they can not afford to purchase their own). The way people keep their entitlements is to keep those who are inclined to give them free stuff in political office.
People are always trying to find new entitlements to keep the dependency in the government fresh and ongoing.
This morning Neal Boortz, on his radio show, jokingly suggested a new entitlement program and liberals ran with it. Never accuse a liberal of passing up any good vote buying scheme.
I can not explain this better than Mr Boortz so I will reprint his short article explaining his plan.
Yup! Sure do! And I’m willing to give this one to you no charge! You would normally have to pay some consultant big bucks for a wonderful idea like this, or spend tens of thousands on focus groups. But I’m giving it to you for absolutely nothing! Now why would I want to do that? Because I want to show everyone how easy you are, and I want to chalk up another “I told you so” for my incredible record amassed over the past 42 years of talk radio. You see … I’m telling you my motives IN ADVANCE! But it doesn’t matter. The idea is so incredible you will be completely unable to resist.
Here you go … PROGRESSIVE PRICING!
This is perfect! I’m really excited for you. It plays perfectly into your “fairness” mantra. With Obama preaching “fair share” on a daily basis over the past three years, and with the emergence of the word “progressive” to define all that is good, warm and righteous, this can’t miss.
I got the idea listening to some of your fellow proggies complaining about banks charging some customers a fee for their checking accounts if they didn’t use other bank services (such as a credit or debit card) of if their accounts held small balances. Of course it just wasn’t FAIR for these banks to charge customers for the services they provide. But here’s the key: This whining proggies also said that the fees for checking accounts for poorer (she probably meant to say “less fortunate”) customers would consume a greater proportion of their income than it would for more successful (the “more fortunate”) customers.
Ahhhhhhh! The little light bulb (40 watt, in your case) is starting to come on, isn’t it! Right! If it’s wrong for a poorer consumer to pay a higher percentage of their income for checking account fees than wealthier Americans; why, then, isn’t it just as wrong for that poor, poor pitiful poor person to pay a higher percentage for other products or services! Especially things that might be deemed essential!
Why should a poor single mother pay a higher percentage of her income for a gallon of milk for her children than a wealthy suburban married mother?
Why should a poor person have to pay a higher percentage of their income on the three gallons of gas (or more) it takes for them to get back and forth to work every day?
Why should a middle income family have to pay a higher percentage of their disposal income for rent than a higher income family?
You see the greatness of my idea now, don’t you. It’s clearly time for Progressive Pricing! It goes right along with your love for the progressive income tax, which came right out of The Communist Manifesto, by the way. If the rich are required to pay a higher percentage of their income in order to provide the government with revenue to spend propping up the poor, why not require these same evil rich people to pay a higher price for consumer items so that retailers and service-providers can lower the prices for po’ folks? They’re already using a system somewhat like this in some European countries where traffic fines for the same offense go up with a person’s income or net wealth.
No … it really wouldn’t be all that hard to implement. After all, how many EBT cards do state governments issue and oversee?
Here’s just a quick idea on how this tremendous Progressive Pricing idea might work. Buyer’s identification cards would be issued to all residents. These cards would be coded with information relating to the holder’s income level. When a purchase is made the caller would have to swipe that card at the check-out counter, and a computer would decide how much that person will have to pay for that item based on how “fortunate” they are.
Sure .. this will take a while to get going. I would suggest that we start with some basics like rent, transportation and gas and move on from there. Yes; it would be expensive, but no cost is too great when it comes to bringing fairness to your system, right?
You don’t have to give me credit for this idea. Enough people will know where it came from for me to stake my “I told you so” claim; just like I did when we found out recently that ObamaCare would cost twice what your God said it would cost.
Let me know if I can be of any more service.
It is a perfect plan to extend another entitlement and garner votes from those touched by that entitlement.
An example could be:
Income Level Price/lb Ground Round Price you pay Amount the Govt subsidizes
<$12,000 $3/lb $0.50/lb $2.50/lb
12,001 - 20,000 $3/lb $1.50/lb $1.50/lb
20,001 - 40,000 $3/lb $2.50/lb $0.50/lb
40,001 -100,000 $3/lb $6.00/lb $0.00/lb
0ver 100,000 $3/lb $10.00/lb $0.00/lb
This is so fair. The lower incomes will pay less while the upper incomes pay to subsidize the lower incomes.
This program will also be a 'job creator' as the bureaucracy to maintain it will be tremendous.
In the end votes will be bought, liberals will remain in office and the United States will change forever.
Yes this is an extreme example and I am sure would never be put in place. But kiddies this is how liberals think. This is the United States that many of them envision.
This is why Obama must be defeated in November. It is time to open your eyes and vote with your brains. The alternative America that Obama is offering is frightening.