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