Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (21045)	1/11/2005 2:08:22 PM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

It had wonderful intentions, let's give some of our poorest elderly a pension in their old age. In order to prevent a possibility of say 2% of the population of elderly citizens (a very real estimate from the 30s, when these programs were introduced) GH on the FOOL writes: Absolutely and WILDLY untrue. The number of elder Americans living in poverty in the 1930's was over 50%. Even in the 1920's it was around 25%. Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. ssa.gov boards.fool.com That was largely due to population migration to the cities. Before around 1910, well over half the population lived on farms. They were born there, they worked there, they lived with their children until they could no longer work, and then they died. With the coming of the industrial revolution, and particularly with mass production in the early 1900's, people moved in droves to the cities - for factory jobs, for greater income, for more choice in their livelihood, to the point where the "balance" was more than 50% by 1920, and far more than 50% by 1930. That left the "family support system" in tatters, and you found elder Americans without the family around them to provide for them. Social Security didn't "cause" it, the creation of the program was a reaction to it. And the number was far greater than "2%". As it is today, BTW. A recent survey showed that about 50% of elder Americans have no other source of income than their Social Security income. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's just fact.

To: GraceZ who wrote (21045)	1/11/2005 2:28:54 PM
From: JBTFD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

<Why why why would you want to keep something that works against your original purpose?> Don't know specifically what you are talking about here. <Defense spending as a percentage of the GDP and a percentage of Federal outlays has dropped significantly since the year I was born, 1954. In 1954 the percentage of Federal outlays which went to national defence was 69.5% and 13.1% of the GDP. In 2004 those numbers were 19.6% of outlays and 4% of GDP. You do the math. OTOH the opposite can be said for Federal outlays which are payments to individuals. In 1954 payments to individuals were a quite manageable 17.8% of Federal outlays and 3.3% of the GDP. In 2004 they were 60.7% of outlays and 12.3% of GDP.> You are so thoroughly ingrained in the thought process of cutting funding that you answer on that basis. My point is if we are going to judge effectiveness the military and pork barrel spending in general should not be exempt.