dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/13/85)
[] In article <792@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> From David Olson: >> 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. >> >Mr. Olson: just try to take away retired citizens Social Security pension >to give to the poor and see how far you get! You will have thousands and >thousands of senior citizens who worked all their lives and paid into >the Social Security fund up in arms and demonstrating. >With good cause: they have paid into the Social Security fund and >they have the right to the pension they have paid for. Who says I want to take it away from them! Indeed, people should get all they paid into it back. >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. As it stands now, on the average for every dollar one collects of the money he paid into SS, he also collects about 3 from somebody else. In reality, SS is another pyramid scheme, no matter who collects it, or how badly it is needed. >If you take away the several hundred billion of your $366 billion >figure for "Income Security", that actually goes to Social Security >that leaves quite a few billions left >in various programs. First of all, "social welfare" are not my words. What I stated was what was written in the 1985 _Infromation_Please_Almanac_. If you don't like the figures, please send your flames to them. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but in one of your previous articles, you claimed that some of the recipients of SS were too poor to live without it. Yet, you also keep claiming that SS is not for poor people. Which is it? Let us assume, though, that SS does not go to poor people. Tell ya what. I'll subtract the SS money from the total federal "social welfare" stated if you will allow me to include the "social welfare" spent at the state and local levels. Fair enough? 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. For every poor family of four, over $52,000 of *social welfare money* was spent on something. WHY ARE THEY STILL POOR! Why has the number of poor people grown by an average of something around 3/4 of a million per year since Johnson instituted the Great Society? >They [poor people] are trying to pull their lives together >and make something of themselves despite incredible obstacles. >We should give them every encouragement in that effort and provide >incentives for them to do so by keeping income they earn. Hear! Hear! I am all in favor of helping those that need help. But, people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams give pretty good arguments that government social spending has hurt more than helped. > tim sevener whuxn!orb My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (11/13/85)
In article <549@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >Forgive me if I am incorrect, but in one of your previous articles, you >claimed that some of the recipients of SS were too poor to live without >it. Yet, you also keep claiming that SS is not for poor people. Which >is it? A large proportion of SS money goes to poor people. But the eligibility for benefits is not tied to income level but to retirement, disability, and survivor status. Got 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. For every poor >family of four, over $52,000 of *social welfare money* was spent on >something. WHY ARE THEY STILL POOR! For one thing because most of that money wasn't spent on poor people! You seem to be making the equation "social spending = money spent on alleviating poverty", which isn't even close to being true, since most federal social spending is NOT targeted on the poor. Here is a breakdown for 1980 (source: *Budget of the US Govt.*, OMB): Function % of federal budget Retirement & disability 23.9 (This includes Soc. Sec., railroad retirement, railroad disability, and public employee retirement.) Unemployment insurance 3.1 (Not much of this goes to the poor, as far as I am aware.) Public assistance (for food, housing, etc.) 6.3 (This is what most people mean by "welfare." It includes AFDC, SSI, public housing, and Food Stamps.) Health (Medicare, Medicaid) 10.0 Education 2.4 Training, employment (e.g. CETA (R.I.P.)) 1.9 Social services 1.1 (Social services includes counseling by social workers, for example.) Veterans' benefits 3.7 TOTAL 52.4 % It is apparent that the programs that are targeted on poverty tend to be small (Food Stamps, AFDC, etc.) while the huge ones, SS and Medicare, are not aimed at poverty, although they do provide some significant alleviation. Social welfare spending in the US has accomplished much good, including lifting a *large* proportion of the poor out of poverty. At the same time, it has not done very much to reduce *income inequality* (where income includes social welfare benefits). >Hear! Hear! I am all in favor of helping those that need help. But, >people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams give pretty good arguments >that government social spending has hurt more than helped. But not good enough, unfortunately. A number of people on the net like to quote the Sowell-Williams-Murray school of thought as if it were Holy Gospel, apparently unaware that much of what they say is controversial and has been challenged and perhaps refuted. Sowell is a fine economist who likes to dabble in sociology, ditto for Williams (yes I know they're black), and Murray is an interesting man but a dilettante sociologist. One should try to hear all sides of a debate rather than assuming that if it's in black and white and sounds plausible and comforting, it's true. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (11/14/85)
[] In article <244@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >In article <549@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes: >>Forgive me if I am incorrect, but in one of your previous articles, you >>claimed that some of the recipients of SS were too poor to live without >>it. Yet, you also keep claiming that SS is not for poor people. Which >>is it? >A large proportion of SS money goes to poor people. But the >eligibility for benefits is not tied to income level but to >retirement, disability, and survivor status. Got it? But, Tim kept claiming that SS does't go to poor people. >>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. For every poor >>family of four, over $52,000 of *social welfare money* was spent on >>something. WHY ARE THEY STILL POOR! >For one thing because most of that money wasn't spent on poor people! >You seem to be making the equation "social spending = money spent on >alleviating poverty", which isn't even close to being true, since most >federal social spending is NOT targeted on the poor. Here is a >breakdown for 1980 (source: *Budget of the US Govt.*, OMB): [a bunch of nice statistics] I have NEVER said that "social spending = money spent on alleviating poverty". It is precisely my point that it doesn't. As you pointed out, "...since most federal social spending is NOT targeted on the poor". There are, therefore, *many* areas of federal spending that can be cut, and poor people will not lose a thing. >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo