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.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Johnson who wrote (559)	8/5/1998 11:25:00 AM
From: Rick Slemmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

David: If social security is a safety net to provide for the most economically needy, than lets keep it as small as possible. Seems to make sense. Absolutely. The problem arises when there are too many UN-needy people at the public trough. Anytime the government is perceived as giving away free money, the incentive to work is reduced, and those who are capable of producing opt instead to be net consumers. There is no easy answer, and I don't think any government at any level is capable of making sure the truly needy get some assistance while ensuring that able workers stay off the dole. I lived in England for nine years, and their social welfare system is a boon to the elderly and disabled. Unfortunately, there is also a huge population of folks who find it more convenient (and more lucrative) to stay unemployed than to find work. Consequently, the system is heavily burdened by too many takers and not enough givers. I don't want to see the US go down that road. RS