Tristero has an interesting multiple choice exam for everyone. I have a minor problem with one answer, however (italics mine):
(B) Advocating the privatization of Social Security as a means of resolving a very real but overblown problem - as favored by the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress - looks increasingly foolish and indefensible.
As I've argued before, Social Security will most likely go bankrupt one Samuelson Unit from now. Given that the Samuelson Unit is always 30-38 years from the time of measurement, and requires the tanking of the U.S. economy for an unprecedented time scale, there is no Social Security Crisis.
an aside: I don't like bashing tristero, as he is one of my favorite political bloggers, but, hopefully, I've restored the karmic balance of blogtopia (and, yes, skippy coined that phrase) by bashing someone who referred to Meals-on-Wheels as welfare.
another aside: There are three problems with Social Security. The absence of the Social Security surplus will mean that the annual deficit will increase. Spending the government securities in the Fund will increase the national debt. Finally, compared to other countries' pension plans, Social Security pays a far lower percentage of pre-retirement income. None of this means, however, that the current Social Security program is DOOMED!
- Log in to post comments
"I've restored the karmic balance of blogtopia (and, yes, skippy coined that phrase) by bashing someone who referred to Meals-on-Wheels as welfare."
On the other hand, I think you just asserted your indifference to meanings in English.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9068463/social-welfare-program
"any of a variety of governmental programs designed to protect citizens from the economic risks and insecurities of life. The most common types of programs provide benefits to the elderly or retired..."
Except its not a government program, its a charity that may receive donations from the goverment and any other source (almost exclusivly from food companies).
It is not run or managed by goverment employes, nor is it a subset of any government department, and thus does not fit the definition you presented.
George W Bush action figures
Kevin,
that's not what you meant in the context of the quote. It was clear, particularly in the context of your conservative economic statements, that you meant that government aid to old people was ineffective. Next, you'll define what "is" is...
Mike,
I don't honestly understand how to decontextualize a state supported program designed to protect the elderly from the vicissitudes of life into not being "welfare". Unless you have some incredible insight into the consciousness of the writers of Encyclopedia Britannica, the quote describes many, if not all Meals on Wheels programs, and certainly any state funded ones. I'm not the one quibbling over semantics.
And no, I didn't assert that particular program was ineffective, I asked what reasons were advanced when it was proposed to defund it, since you didn't state them. That program may have achieved its stated goals very well.