> Paula:
> I'm not sure this effects wha t you're talking about, but I believe we
> currently have a higher ratio of children living in poverty than seniors.
> Children don't vote, so you can ignore them and save the money. Even though
> so many people think SS security is about to disappear, I have a feeling
> we're about to see the strongest senior lobby in history, as the boomers
> age. Hordes of oldsters rushing the voting booths.
>
> John K. Taber:
> Paula, I hope this isn't the generational war, affluent geezer argument
> put forth by the Cato Institute and the Concord Coalition.
>
> Without Social Security, about 52% of the elderly would be living
> below poverty levels. Even with Social Security about 12% (I think
> it is) still live in poverty.
>
> In other words, Social Security has been largely successful in the
> social goal of keeping the old out of poverty.
>
> Now, the fact remains that about 20% of our children live in
> poverty. That is a crime. But you don't want to argue that the
> success of a social program causes that crime.
Not to mention that a lot of kids have grandparents on Social Security. The money that otherwise would have been needed to care for grandparents has improved life (and future educational prospects) for tens of millions of those kids.
I'm not aware of anything specific online about this, but I interviewed someone at NCSC a couple of years ago who made this point quite emphatically. It's perfectly obvious once you stop and think about it.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"