Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Social Security vs Social Welfare Message-ID: <361@whuts.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 15:51:50 EST Article-I.D.: whuts.361 Posted: Tue Nov 5 15:51:50 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 21:36:07 EST References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 74 > > > Ronald Reagan has spent over $1 trillion on the military during his > > administration, far more than combined outlays for "social spending". > > For your information, Mr. Wheeler, "social spending" is usually not > > defined as money for the Weather Bureau, the Parks System, > > federal highways, etc. but money for various welfare programs. > > -- Tim Sevener (orb@whuts) > > Tim makes this claim from time to time, and it doesn't seem to matter that > I usually post statistics which show that it's utter nonsense. I wish Tim > would get a copy of the *US Statistical Abstract* and look this up for > himself each time he gets the urge to post an article about the federal > budget. > > For the record, military spending does not exceed outlays for "social > spending". Data for the following table was obtained from the US > Statistical Abstract, 1984, p.316; the numbers indicate acutal outlays in > millions of dollars. > 1980 1983 > ----- ----- > National Defense 135.9 214.8 > Vet.Benefits 21.2 24.4 > Total Military 157.1 239.2 > % of total outlays 27.2 29.7 > > Income Security 193.1 282.5 > Health 55.2 82.4 > Education 30.8 26.7 > Total Social Spending 279.1 391.6 > % of total outlays 48.4 48.6 > > 1980 is of course the last full Carter year. The figures for 1983 are > estimates in the Abstract; other sources (Congressional Quarterly, Feb. 4, > 1984, pp.206-7) indicate that the actual figures for the military are > *lower*, and actual figures for social spending are *much higher*). > The budgets of the weather bureau, parks system, federal highways, etc. do > not appear anywhere in the table. > Scott Renner Scott you know very well that you are greatly confusing the issue by including Social Security as part of "social spending". When most Americans talk of "social spending" I do not think that they consider Social Security as a part of that. Most Americans think of "social spending" as first off welfare (i.e. Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Food Stamps), and then perhaps such things as Medicare, Medicaid, and education. Social Security is not even a part of the Federal budget as such but technically is an independent trust fund to which people pay every year for their retirement like any other pension fund. Savings for retirement or disability, whether forced by the government, by a corporation, or any other organization, can hardly be considered in the same class as welfare programs. Welfare programs are deliberate subsidies to those with lower incomes. Pension funds, such as Social Security, are established and maintained by workers' own contributions and are as much a part of the remuneration for a job as the weekly paycheck. The money paid out is partially based upon the money paid in and the amount of quarters worked. By including the government sponsored Social Security pension fund you can therefore create the impression that subsidies to the poor are enormous and the largest part of the federal budget. This is patently false and I hope you will cease making such misleading comparisons. Such a comparison would be like corporations claiming that their "philanthropy" includes corporate pension funds (which include much larger pensions for executives than ordinary workers), so that they are practically giving away all their profits. It is more accurate to either 1)totally exclude the Social Security Trust Fund OR 2)explicitly note it as a special category independent of "Income Security"- which lumps a worker paid pension fund with actual welfare subsidies to the poor thank you, tim sevener whuxn!orb