dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/07/85)
[] From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) >> From: tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) >> >The great theorist explains all again. Phooey, Sevener, you >> >seem to have Tip O'neil's party line rhetoric down pat. >> >First, supply side economics DOES depend on consumer spending, >> >not the savings rate. Second, when are you going to admit >> >that social spending far outweighs military spending? >> >T. C. Wheeler >> >> In fact, according to the _Information_Please_Almanac_ for 1985, >> social welfare spending for 1982 (the latest year given) accounts >> for more than all the other federal outlays *combined*. 51%. >> >> David Olson >Heaven forbid we should spend money helping people, that could be >used to build weapons to destroy our enemies! Talk about straw men! Nowhere in either of these articles does it say that it is wrong to help people. What is pointed out is the specious argument that claims that cutting defense will fix all our troubles. All the billions spent by HHS didn't; what makes you think a few extra billions from the DOD would? Figure it out for yourself. If you take the $366 billion spent (at the federal level alone) in 1982 on social welfare and simply divided it among all the poor in the US, they would have received about $12,000 each. A family of four would then have received about $48,000 ($78,000 if you include state and local) PLUS whatever income they had before. That leaves only two choices: either the needy are not needy, or the vast majority of the social welfare spending is *not getting* to those people that need help. Which brings up a question: Is *all* the money spent on social welfare needed? No. >Todd Jones My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
renner@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/13/85)
> ...they have paid into the Social Security fund and they have the > right to the pension they have paid for. Whether they should > get the current level of benefits which amounts to more than > they ever paid into the system is another question. But in deciding > this question one also has to calculate what their payments into the > system are now worth accounting for the interest rate... > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuxl) 1. One has a legal right to the benefits of a pension one has bought, but no one has legal rights to SS benefits in this way. If you insist, I'll post the pertinent Supreme Court decision. SS benefits are dependent on the whim of Congress. 2. SS is not a pension fund. At any time the investments of a pension fund, plus interest, should equal or exceed the expected obligations of the fund. The "obligations" of SS are in the trillions. How much money is in the SS trust fund? 3. The value of "contributions" to the SS fund should not be adjusted according to interest rates, because these contributions were *never invested*. Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/15/85)
[] >> = me. In article : <811@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >feeling forced to concede that including the Social Security >Trust Fund in the category of "social welfare" is like >mixing apples and oranges, Dave Olson is now trying to >retreat behind another mixup of apples and oranges: namely >combining all state government spending with federal spending I beg your pardon! The state spending I mentioned is NOT all of it! >> I could not find the figure in the almanac listed above, but in the >> _World_Almanac_ of 1985 it lists the total expenditure by the Social >> Security Administration in 1982 at $176.2 billion. That leaves about >> $416 billion of social welfare money without SS. That still means that >> for every poor person (man, woman, and child), over $13,000 of *social >> welfare money* was spent on something in just that year. >I'm afraid this won't really work either, Dave. If you wish >to include states spending on social welfare then you should >also include their spending on state militias, the National >Guard, and so forth. Why? The state spending I mentioned did *not* include infrastructure, parks, law enforcement, National Guard, etc. >Not only that, but supposed "social spending" by states >is as deceptive as "social spending" by the federal government >which falsely includes Social Security- one of the major categories >of such spending is unemployment insurance. So what? And even if that is true, according to my favorite source, the 1985 _Information_Please_Almanac_, it lists "Social Insurance" (I am assuming that includes unemployment insurance -- nothing else it lists as "Social Welfare" [their words] fits there. i.e. there was no heading called "Income Security") for 1982 at $51.4 billion. That still leaves over 3/4 of state "Social Welfare" that isn't. >I do not want to delve into the myriad finances of all 50 states >and it is totally inappropriate to do so when the subject is >*federal spending*. Would it improve things if all that money was spent strictly at the federal level? I think not. Besides, why do you keep saying that I am claiming that "Social Welfare" only goes to poor people? I have NEVER made such a claim. All I stated in the article you cite was that social welfare money is spent on *something*. My objection is with people who claim that "Social Welfare" money is intended for poor people; that cutting defense will, therefore, free up money that will help those that need help. It is clearly not the case. My objection is also with people who claim that cutting defense will fix the deficit. If defense was cut back to 1980 levels, it would only cut the deficit by 40%. Even Jimmy Carter realized that that level of defense was *too low*. The defense he wanted was even heigher than what Reagan wanted. And what we got was even less. 60% of the deficit is in the non-defense spending. Whether this takes the form of Social Security, parks, welfare, etc. is totally irrelevant. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo