You folks don’t get it. The WSJ version is a LOAN. The article alludes to welfare costs. Poor folk don’t invest. Parents? They won’t do it if they’re not doing it now. This would go a long way towards eliminating welfare and just not “as we know it”. Bernie wouldn’t support it and you all know it.
Anchor babies? As if you think it’s impossible to outlaw their eligibility. Aim lower my skeptic friends.
Since you didn’t post an excerpt, link, or details of the article, maybe you should go easy on those of us, who didn’t “get it”.
And NO inner city parent would EVER fail to invest or allocate that money properly... and NO sector of government would EVER direct that money towards their personal investments... and getting government involved in monetary guarantees (like college tuition or home loans or health insurance) has NEVER led to skyrocketing prices and improper risk-taking based on "social justice" goals...
Ahem...