i have heard that social security is not as "in danger" as we think it is--that if the trust fund hadn't been raided so many times to fudge the budget in other areas, it'd be totally solvent now. seems to me somebody could, in theory, put that money back into the fund and the crisis would be averted. but i'm just guessing, because i don't know if that's even legal.
also, i have serious issues with the way certain social programs have been "reformed" already. there are an awful lot of female-heads-of-household out there who are now in poverty and doomed to stay 'less they get real lucky because a bunch o' wiseacres thought that if you got off the welfare rolls, regardless of how you got off, you'd automatically be self-sufficient and wouldn't need the government's help anymore. kinda makes rush limbaugh's accusation that liberals judge how much welfare helps by how many people are on the rolls look a little quaint.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 04:59 pm (UTC)also, i have serious issues with the way certain social programs have been "reformed" already. there are an awful lot of female-heads-of-household out there who are now in poverty and doomed to stay 'less they get real lucky because a bunch o' wiseacres thought that if you got off the welfare rolls, regardless of how you got off, you'd automatically be self-sufficient and wouldn't need the government's help anymore. kinda makes rush limbaugh's accusation that liberals judge how much welfare helps by how many people are on the rolls look a little quaint.