Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security vs Social Welfare
Message-ID: <1270@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 11:15:54 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1270
Posted: Wed Nov  6 11:15:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Nov-85 21:38:37 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200244@uiucdcs> <361@whuts.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 48

> 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. 

     If social security *were* government forced savings for retirement,
then I wouldn't consider it social spending.  But that's not what social
security is.  In reality, as I'm sure Sevener is well aware of, the 
government collects funds from working people and transfers them to
retired or disabled people immediately.  This sounds *awfully* similar
to other forms of social spending.  
> 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

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "What would Captain Kirk say?"