Which is where social safety nets, socialized medicine, and a stronger minimum wage come into play, but this same economic think tank as argued against all of them.

They've been on record, numerous times, arguing against benefits to the poor/poorest, and now suddenly we've meant to believe that they're looking out for the poor when it also benefits the wealthiest for the poor to sacrifice themselves?

Seems more than a little disingenuous if you look at whom we're discussing here.