Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 7/26/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!dlo
From: dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: social vs. defense spending
Message-ID: <493@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Nov-85 14:35:40 EST
Article-I.D.: drutx.493
Posted: Thu Nov  7 14:35:40 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:45:49 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 45

[]

From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones)
>> From: tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler)
>> >The great theorist explains all again.  Phooey, Sevener, you
>> >seem to have Tip O'neil's party line rhetoric down pat.
>> >First, supply side economics DOES depend on consumer spending,
>> >not the savings rate.  Second, when are you going to admit
>> >that social spending far outweighs military spending?
>> >T. C. Wheeler
>> 
>> 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

>Heaven forbid we should spend money helping people, that could be
>used to build weapons to destroy our enemies!

Talk about straw men!  Nowhere in either of these articles does it say
that it is wrong to help people.  What is pointed out is the specious
argument that claims that cutting defense will fix all our troubles.
All the billions spent by HHS didn't; what makes you think a few extra
billions from the DOD would?

Figure it out for yourself.  If you take the $366 billion spent (at the
federal level alone) in 1982 on social welfare and simply divided it
among all the poor in the US, they would have received about $12,000
each.  A family of four would then have received about $48,000 ($78,000
if you include state and local) PLUS whatever income they had before.
That leaves only two choices: either the needy are not needy, or the
vast majority of the social welfare spending is *not getting* to those
people that need help.

Which brings up a question: Is *all* the money spent on social welfare
needed?  No.

>Todd Jones


My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo