Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
Thomas Sowell, in his amazing and most thought provoking book "Vision of the Annointed" addresses this in the opening section. He had just recounted the pattern of how those who claim the best of intentions generally address societal issues and problems. And then addresses the issue of poverty (among other things) as illustration:
(In Chapter One of Vision of the Annointed. Sowell includes references to his sources for all statistical data. I can't provide page numbers as I am copying this from my Kindle and it doesn't show the page numbers as they appear in the hard copy of the book.)
Excerpt:
If Sowell is right--and I would bet a very nice steak dinner that he is--this alone should cause us to back up and rethink what we do. Have all those trillions we have poured into poverty programs created more dependency than have actually helped people who would not have otherwise helped themselves? Cannot reasonable and intelligent people look at it from that perspective and come to a rational and supportable decision without demonizing or insulting some political party or group or demographic?
(Note: I was introduced to Sowell's book some time after I started this thread. I wish I had had it when I started the thread. )
Add to that the idea that SS somehow keeps people out of poverty. That is their money for crying out loud. They put into the system and they are taking out (albeit a bit more than they put in).
That's like saying my 401K keeps me out of poverty. The government didn't put that there. I did. So I am the one keeping myself out of poverty.
Royal Airforce Bullshyt.
Yes, social security does provide a means to help some escape poverty. But is it the most efficient and effective way to do that? Does social security produce more unintended negative consequences than it does good? These are questions that visionaries are not afraid to ask. Not afraid to explore. And intellectually honest people would prefer an honest answer rather than one that fits a particular ideology whether the answer to such questions are 'yes' or 'no'.
What was said was that if 20 million didn't have it, they'd be in poverty. That isn't the same as saying it keeps them out of poverty...because if they lost it, they might find another way to replace it.
The bigger implication is that somehow the government is doing them a favor. Which it isn't. It's really the other way around. People got lax thinking this would be there (even they were told not to do that). Additionally, the actuarial basis for the whole system was screwed when pols started adding new groups to the list of eligibles.
Overall, it has been a huge failure in terms of the investment we've made in it.