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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!dlo
From: dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: social vs. defense spending: a compromise
Message-ID: <579@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Nov-85 10:39:03 EST
Article-I.D.: drutx.579
Posted: Thu Nov 14 10:39:03 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Nov-85 21:15:06 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 45

[]

In article <244@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>In article <549@drutx.UUCP> dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) writes:

>>Forgive me if I am incorrect, but in one of your previous articles, you
>>claimed that some of the recipients of SS were too poor to live without
>>it.  Yet, you also keep claiming that SS is not for poor people.  Which
>>is it?  

>A large proportion of SS money goes to poor people.  But the
>eligibility for benefits is not tied to income level but to
>retirement, disability, and survivor status.  Got it?  

But, Tim kept claiming that SS does't go to poor people.

>>I could not find the figure in the almanac listed above, but in the
>>_World_Almanac_ of 1985 it lists the total expenditure by the Social
>>Security Administration in 1982 at $176.2 billion.  That leaves about
>>$416 billion of social welfare money without SS.  That still means that
>>for every poor person (man, woman, and child), over $13,000 of *social
>>welfare money* was spent on something in just that year.  For every poor
>>family of four, over $52,000 of *social welfare money* was spent on
>>something.  WHY ARE THEY STILL POOR!  

>For one thing because most of that money wasn't spent on poor people!
>You seem to be making the equation "social spending = money spent on
>alleviating poverty", which isn't even close to being true, since most
>federal social spending is NOT targeted on the poor.  Here is a
>breakdown for 1980 (source:  *Budget of the US Govt.*, OMB):

[a bunch of nice statistics]

I have NEVER said that "social spending = money spent on alleviating
poverty".  It is precisely my point that it doesn't.  As you pointed
out, "...since most federal social spending is NOT targeted on the poor".
There are, therefore, *many* areas of federal spending that can be cut,
and poor people will not lose a thing.

>Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

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

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo