Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Supply-side Economics: the  Savings
Message-ID: <1423@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 19:14:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1423
Posted: Fri Nov  8 19:14:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Nov-85 12:45:24 EST
References: <756@whuxl.UUCP> <29200246@uiucdcs>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

> > [tim sevener (orb@whuxn)]
> >  ...you know very well that you are greatly confusing the issue by
> >  including Social Security as part of "social spending".  ... 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.
--------------
> [Scott Renner]
> Oh no, not the old "Social Security isn't social spending, it's a pension
> fund" argument.
> [Argument that Soc. Sec. is social spending (omitted for brevity)]
--------------
Scott Renner's facts are correct.  Social security is vastly different than a
pension fund, and has many characteristics of social welfare spending.
However, I think Scott misses the context of Tim's point, which I think is
also correct.  The general public THINKS that Social Security is a pension plan
for them, and does not view it as social spending, which they associate with
poor people and minorities.  Thus when anyone lumps Social Security in
with social welfare spending figures when speaking to the public, they 
are at best misleading the public unless they specifically and clearly indicate
that they are including Social Security.  Actually, I would say they are either
ignorant or lying through their teeth.  But that's politics.
-- 
Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan