orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/05/85)
> > 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 Part of what you are citing as "social welfare" spending is the 33% of the federal budget including trust funds which is slated for Social Security. Social Security is *not* social welfare nor is it targetted for the poor - it is a government sponsored pension plan which requires a minimum amount of work-time paid into the system before anyone is eligible. People have paid into the Social Security system for their whole working lives. TO get a pension from this fund is *not* social welfare! tim sevener whuxn!orb
shad@teldata.UUCP (11/14/85)
In article <358@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > ... > Social Security is *not* social welfare nor > is it targetted for the poor - it is a government sponsored pension > plan which requires a minimum amount of work-time paid into the > system before anyone is eligible. People have paid into the > Social Security system for their whole working lives. > TO get a pension from this fund is *not* social welfare! Whether intentional or not Sevener is simply spouting propoganda that the Social Security Administration has been telling us for years. But what he (and the S.S.A.) says is not so. To find out exactly what S.S. is or is not there is no better source than the U.S. Supreme Court. The following are eye-opening excerpts from a case before the U. S. Supreme Court. In this case the Court was trying to find a way to approve of denying Social Security to a "commie". "The Social Security System is a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to spend money in aid of the general welfare, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. "The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Social Security Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments. "To engraft upon the social security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603. -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad