The Doggy Diaries... gone to the dogs!

Well, I don't know what to comment on that article. The way I read it seemed like the author wants Social Security and Medicare spending cut. If that's done, what happens to all those people that paid into the system? Like your parents and mine. They depend on Social Security and Medicare to pay their bills.

Since it's hard for most working middle class people to put aside their own retirement money because they have to pay 7.65 percent of their wages into Social Security and Medicare why shouldn't then expect to receive something back from the system.

Plus the fact that all the baby boomers are now starting to collect from Social Security and Medicare I can understand why there was a flip in spending.

I understand what you're saying completely, Bruce. To be sure, a big portion of the ballooning entitlement budget is because large increase in our elderly population from what in 1956. I'm sure, although I will honestly say that I haven't looked it up, that the elderly comprise a higher percentage of our population now than they did 50 years ago. So yes, we are spending much more on social security and Medicare now.

However, that being said, the Associated Press (again, like Newsweek, AP is not a bastion of conservative thinking) has reported that although "the number of families receiving cash benefits from welfare has plummeted since the government imposed time limits on the payments a decade ago ... other programs for the poor, including Medicaid, food stamps and disability benefits, are bursting with new enrollees." (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WELFARE_STATE?SITE=TXMCA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT )
What this breaks down to is that nearly one out of every six people in the U.S. is on some form of public assistance. So while they may not be getting direct handouts of money to live, they are receiving indirect handouts of money through vouchers for food, housing assistance, paid services for medical care, etc.

There's a nice little interactive showing the level of public assistance use by state, which can be found at http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/public_assistance/index.html?SITE=TXMCA . You might be interested to know that, according to the interactive chart, Ohio gives out only a moderate amount of food stamp assistance, but it gives out a lot of SSI benefits, and quite a bit of AFDC benefits (the new name for "welfare"). In terms of Medicaid expenditures, it's right in the middle.

With S.S. many more people are paying into the fund and many more are getting some out of it. Could you support your parents for what you pay into S.S.? How much does anyone (except defense contractors) get back out of the other pieces of the pie?

Judy, I believe you're making a false assumption in support of your argument. By asking whether I could support my parents on what I pay to social security, you make the assumption that my parents could support themselves on social security and nothing but social security, which, as I will tell you from what I know of many people nearing retirement age, is simply not true.

The problem is that many people born of a generation that will have access to social security (certainly not my generation) have allowed themselves to believe that social security is akin to a fully-funded retirement plan, so they didn't need to plan for their own retirement. In fact, only now as they realize how small the benefits they will actually receive from social security are any of them taking action to save on their own. You see, social security was never meant to be a full retirement plan. It was meant as a supplement, as "security" (hence the name "social security"), against poverty in old age. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt reiterated this when signing the social security act into law -- "... we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen ... against poverty-ridden old age."

Could I support my parents on what I pay to social security? Probably not. Probably not, that is, if they insist on living hundreds or thousands of miles away from me in their own house, driving new, expensive vehicles, etc. Now, if they would be willing to live with us, or in a small, separate house we could build for them on our land, and if they would be willing to give up their expensive cars for older, middle-of-the-road cars that my husband can do most maintenance on himself, that don't require several hundred dollars in loan payments each month or exorbitant insurance payments, and have lowered DMV registration fees, if they could limit purchasing new clothes and shoes, new electronics, new DVDs, CDs, give up the bi-monthly trips to Home Depot for new plants or other "stuff," then yes, we could support my parents for what I pay in to social security. That's especially true if I were allowed to keep my social security money and grow it, tax-free, through compound interest in a money market or some other type of account that might grow faster than inflation. Would my parents be living in the lap of luxury? No, probably not. But would they be living a poverty-free lifestyle? You sure as hell better believe it.

Now, if we add their own retirement savings to what my husband and I could offer, then they could live a fairly nice lifestyle in their golden years.

Of course, I haven't included medical payments into the mix because that's another subject entirely. I dare say very few people can afford their own medical care with the way health care costs have spiraled out of control over the last 15 to 20 years.

You also mentioned defense contractors as being the only people who might get money out of the other pieces of pie. Let me ask you this. Why do you buy insurance? Why do you give money away to your insurance company every month, without fail, for auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance, etc? You don't get that money back, do you? Or do you? I contend that you absolutely get that money back in both peace of mind and in support when bad things happen to you. In fact, the best insurance money you'll ever spend is money that you'll never see again because it means that nothing terrible has befallen you or your family.

Is the same not true of what our defense budget should be used for? Having a robust defense means we can all sleep easier at night knowing that our government is using it's best intelligence, technology, and ability to keep us from being attacked by those who would harm us. How much is that worth to you? I dare say I'd rather take care of my parents in their old age using my own money and resources and give my social security money to the defense department as insurance against the unthinkable.

Also, defense contractors aren't the only ones who receive the benefit of government's defense dollars. Every employee of that defense contractor benefits by increased job security and, perhaps, increased pay or benefits. In addition, every company that a defense contractor uses for any little thing, be it office supplies, staffing, materials procurement, overnight shipping, transportation, etc., benefits. Those companies also hire many, many people who, by the increase in business to their company may also benefit from increased compensation and company perks. Those same employees now have money to spend on consumer items which spill out into the economy as a whole and keep the entire machine well-oiled and running smoothly.

So money that was originally given to the defense contractor by the federal government has now made its way into the hands of many.

I ask again. Are defense contractors the only ones who will benefit from other pieces of the pie? No.