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: <589@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 11:22:34 EST
Article-I.D.: drutx.589
Posted: Fri Nov 15 11:22:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Nov-85 15:51:54 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 67

[]

>> = me.

In article : <811@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes:
>feeling forced to concede that including the Social Security
>Trust Fund in the category of "social welfare" is like
>mixing apples and oranges, Dave Olson is now trying to
>retreat behind another mixup of apples and oranges: namely
>combining all state government spending with federal spending

I beg your pardon!  The state spending I mentioned is NOT all of it!

>> 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.  
 
>I'm afraid this won't really work either, Dave.  If you wish
>to include states spending on social welfare then you should
>also include their spending on state militias, the National 
>Guard, and so forth.

Why?  The state spending I mentioned did *not* include infrastructure,
parks, law enforcement, National Guard, etc.
 
>Not only that, but supposed "social spending" by states
>is as deceptive as "social spending" by the federal government
>which falsely includes Social Security- one of the major categories
>of such spending is unemployment insurance.

So what?  And even if that is true, according to my favorite source,
the 1985 _Information_Please_Almanac_, it lists "Social Insurance"
(I am assuming that includes unemployment insurance -- nothing else
it lists as "Social Welfare" [their words] fits there.  i.e. there
was no heading called "Income Security") for 1982 at $51.4 billion.
That still leaves over 3/4 of state "Social Welfare" that isn't.

>I do not want to delve into the myriad finances of all 50 states
>and it is totally inappropriate to do so when the subject is
>*federal spending*.

Would it improve things if all that money was spent strictly at the
federal level?  I think not.

Besides, why do you keep saying that I am claiming that "Social Welfare"
only goes to poor people?  I have NEVER made such a claim.  All I stated
in the article you cite was that social welfare money is spent on *something*.
My objection is with people who claim that "Social Welfare" money is
intended for poor people; that cutting defense will, therefore, free up
money that will help those that need help.  It is clearly not the case.
My objection is also with people who claim that cutting defense will
fix the deficit.  If defense was cut back to 1980 levels, it would only
cut the deficit by 40%.  Even Jimmy Carter realized that that level of
defense was *too low*.  The defense he wanted was even heigher than what
Reagan wanted.  And what we got was even less.  60% of the deficit is in
the non-defense spending.  Whether this takes the form of Social Security,
parks, welfare, etc. is totally irrelevant.

>        tim sevener  whuxn!orb

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

David Olson
..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo