# Why the idea that fiscal conservatives hate poor people? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872 "2010-02-06T01:32:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/281 "2010-02-13T04:43:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You quite miss the point. That I personally know someone who has been royally buggered is true enough, but my point is that most of us do. Its kind of like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, few of us are farther than two from such a victim: our neighbor, our co-worker, wife’s hairdresser, etc. By this I mean to point out another variety of grass-roots movement, one born of growing personal awareness rather than awareness in the abstract, or awareness imposed from without. But how is your anecdote more probative of personal awareness than **Shodan’s**? Surely the fact that someone owned a small business and became a millionaire as a result is not all that abstract. Why, I know of one such person myself…several actually…but this case is much along the same line. I know a woman who supervises nine or ten McDonald’s restaurants. She came here legally from Mexico and is employed by a person much like the one in **Shodan’s** anecdote. In this case, the ‘guy’ came here legally as a young man and went to work washing dishes for McDonald’s. He is now in his sixties, owns around thirty McDonald’s restaurants, and is a millionaire several times over. He came to own these restaurants by virtue of a commitment to running his stores cleanly, properly and with an eye toward his customers having a good experience. Now, whenever McDonald’s has a restaurant in this area whose franchisee can’t seem to hack it and run his store properly, my friend’s boss is who they call to offer the store to. So here we have another ‘guy’ who, by dint of hard work and discipline and a willingness to invest in himself, became a millionaire as well. And to repeat Shodan’s question to **Brain Glutton** , how exactly has he become wealthy by exploiting others? And what unfair advantage did he use to exploit them? The simple fact of the matter is that some people are willing to work harder than others to get ahead. Often times it happens that they do just that. In fact, it has happened over and over again in this country to the tune of hundreds of thousands of times (so again, the notion isn’t all that abstract). Then, people like **Brain Glutton** and **gonzomax** and **devilsknew** look at the fact that these people have more than the average non-striving bear and find this somehow ‘unfair’. They think of the country’s cumulative wealth as rightly belonging to everybody and that everybody should share more or less equally in it. So they lobby and agitate and vote for the government to take wealth from those people who have worked hard for it and spread it around to everyone else (everyone else being the non-strivers in this case) and they attempt to justify this blatantly unfair and wrongheaded stance by claiming that individual wealth is created only through exploitation of some sort and/or through some kind of unfair advantage. The one thing they never talk about for some reason is that most people who don’t have much, haven’t done much to try to get it. The fact of the matter is that most people don’t want to do the type of things that it takes to own, operate and build a business. They don’t want to deal with bankers and regulators and quarterly tax payments and health insurance and retirement plans and advances in technology and how to compete effectively with their company’s competitors. No, they want to clock in, do their eight hours, and then go home to play with the kids, drink beer and watch TV, go shopping, etc. So fine. That’s their choice. But then they (or their self-appointed guardians on the left) have no legitimate standing to complain or sling insults and accusations of selfishness when the people who have opted to work hard and take on all these challenges resist efforts to take from them what they’ve earned and give it to the non-strivers. The fact that they do not have this standing in no way keeps them from doing just that however, and so here we are, with one side saying “Hey, I earned this and I have every right to it” and another side saying “No, you capitalist pig, you stole it by unfairly exploiting your workers”. So I leave it to you, **luci** , to explain just how it is that the 9-to-5 crowd deserves to profit just as much its employers, who often have their own hard-earned money at risk and often work twice as hard? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/282 "2010-02-13T05:22:56Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Ok, if the nation wants a health care safety net, that’s an admiral goal. > > At least design a system that pays for itself and adds zero public debt. This requires honest caps on spending. > > We have not mastered that ability. Medicare is insolvent. Social Security is insolvent. Our track record of government shows we are dipshit stupid when it comes to engineering entitlements with fiscal responsibility. The concept that social security is insolvent isn’t really true. Minor changes like a 15% tax increase (from 12.4% up to 14.2%) would keep it solvent until 2075 or so w/o any changes to the cap, benefits or retirement age. Medicare is insolvent though w/o massive changes (tripling the tax rate, etc). Either way, I tend to agree that we are dumping all these responsibilities on kids. Not only that, but we are putting them into a world with stagnant wages, college debt and unaffordable health care. I really wonder what is going to happen with our health system. It is not sustainable, but nobody wants to change it (too many powerful people like it the way it is). I guess around 2030~, it’ll just collapse or something like the USSR. That’ll be interesting. Maybe then we can get real reform. Not this wimpy tinkering bullshit Obama is doing. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/283 "2010-02-13T06:05:50Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Shodan, thanks for posting those quotes from me, which show the above post from Polycarp to be completely ludicrous. > > Polycarp–any response? A simple retraction of the above post would suffice. If you say something outrageous – and you do regularly, **Rand Rover** , for reasons I am obliged not to speculate on in GD – you can exect to get called on it. In view of the points **Shodan** has raised, would you be so kind as to say what you believe are valid purposes for levying taxes, and which are improper? If you lived in an area devastated by a natural disaster, would you object to Federal disaster-relief aid? If the health care reform compromise ends up with a program specifically targeting catastrphic illness, and you contracted a casastrophic illness, would you refuse coverage under it? And if your answer is that you would accept Federal aid under those condtiions, do you feel it appropriate to deny it to others? If someone has taken proper financial care for their future but found their savings wiped out through one of the notorious recent episodes of financial chicanery (Enron, AIG, etc.), so that they cannot recover from the offenders, do you feel that they are deserving of help? Or should they suffer as being to stupid to not be the victims of crooks? If all taxation is not violence, at what point does it become violence? Where do you draw the line? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/284 "2010-02-13T11:26:52Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The concept that social security is insolvent isn’t really true. Minor changes like a 15% tax increase (from 12.4% up to 14.2%) would keep it solvent until 2075 or so w/o any changes to the cap, benefits or retirement age. I don’t think the debate is settled, and it’s more complex than you’re suggesting. From the government’s website ([http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n8](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n8)): > [@](#): > > In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled “Low Cost”) the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the “Intermediate” and “High Cost”), the trust funds become depleted within the next 30 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees’ best estimate of future experience. > > The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program. The fund was nearly depleted as recently as 1982. It’s currently a Ponzi scheme, and even your suggestion appears to just push out the date we drive off a cliff. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/285 "2010-02-13T14:31:34Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > If you say something outrageous – and you do regularly, **Rand Rover** , for reasons I am obliged not to speculate on in GD – you can exect to get called on it. What do you mean “get called on it”? You were wrong about my position. You didn’t “call” me on anthing. Also, this post is just a blatant attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your last post completely and obviously mischaracterized my position–so obviously that you were corrected by a poster other than me. > [@](#): > > In view of the points **Shodan** has raised, would you be so kind as to say what you believe are valid purposes for levying taxes, and which are improper? As I’ve already said, I think the only legitimate activites of government are those things with a more-or-less equal benefit for everyone that can really only be done by a government (i.e., because society would run into the collective action problem otherwise). Examples include police, military, roads, certain limited health and safety regulatory agencies, etc. > [@](#): > > If you lived in an area devastated by a natural disaster, would you object to Federal disaster-relief aid? If the health care reform compromise ends up with a program specifically targeting catastrphic illness, and you contracted a casastrophic illness, would you refuse coverage under it? And if your answer is that you would accept Federal aid under those condtiions, do you feel it appropriate to deny it to others? These are odd-ball examples, but, in general, if the government wants to give me something, I will take it, even if I don’t think the government should be giving it in the first place. I don’t see anything inconsistent between this and the idea that the government should confine its activities to those legitimate government activities as discussed above. > [@](#): > > If someone has taken proper financial care for their future but found their savings wiped out through one of the notorious recent episodes of financial chicanery (Enron, AIG, etc.), so that they cannot recover from the offenders, do you feel that they are deserving of help? Or should they suffer as being to stupid to not be the victims of crooks? Your example is impossible. One cannot “take proper financial care for their future” and then get “wiped out” through “one episode.” Can’t happen. > [@](#): > > If all taxation is not violence, at what point does it become violence? Where do you draw the line? You are still confused. All taxation is violence, I never said otherwise. But you were wrong to say that I believe the government should not levy any taxes. Rather, the government is justified in levying taxes only when the money will be used to support a legitimate state activity (as I’ve outlined above). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/286 "2010-02-14T05:14:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > If you say something outrageous – and you do regularly, **Rand Rover** , for reasons I am obliged not to speculate on in GD – you can exect to get called on it. The trouble is that the one making the outrageous statement is you. You made a blatantly false statement about **Rand Rover** ’s position, which has been directly refuted. You have been called on it. Think about how you might want people to react when they are called on their false statements. Then do the same. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/287 "2010-02-14T05:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > If someone has taken proper financial care for their future but found their savings wiped out through one of the notorious recent episodes of financial chicanery (Enron, AIG, etc.), so that they cannot recover from the offenders, Which brings up another good point. Conservatives are fond of bashing teh gubmit system, yapping that the “system is corrupt” Yet, being corrupt is not exclusive to public systems…PRIVATE systems are also VERY corrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Oveja\_Slayer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/47e85d/32.png) [@Oveja\_Slayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oveja_Slayer)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/288 "2010-02-14T05:48:18Z")
> [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Which brings up another good point. Conservatives are fond of bashing teh gubmit system, yapping that the “system is corrupt” Yet, being corrupt is not exclusive to public systems…PRIVATE systems are also VERY corrupt. A valid point, so the question becomes is there any way to avoid corruption entirely? I would say no. The idea that fiscal conservatives hate poor people is a misnomer. I think we need some social programs in place to support people down on their luck. However “down on my luck” should not become a lifestyle. Why is it that when someone on welfare/disability/SSI starts to try and be self sufficient, the government starts charging them money. Let’s say you get 600-700 a month from one of these programs (assuming you only collect on one). Well, if you earn more than 500 in a month, the government wants you to pay them almost half the money they gave you back immediately! How is anyone supposed to get a leg up when the government system essentially enslaves you to it? The two big issues I’ve had reading through this debate are this: 1. People want it to be “either/or” when it’s “both/and.” We need programs to help the less fortunate. However, we need programs that EMPOWER the individual, not trap them into slavery of the system. People should not be collecting welfare for years and years and years. I would say 6 months should be plenty to get your shit together and find a job. But why get a job when you can make more money sucking off the government teat. This is how it’s a vicious cycle that enslaves people. Suppress wages and offer a government brand “solution” to the problem. 1. No one is talking about where all the wealth goes. In America, about 80-90% of the wealth is held by less than 1% of the population. Those are third world statistics folks. Meanwhile, our dollar has plummeted 96% in value over about the last 100 years (ever since the Federal Reserve was brought about…hmmmm…). We are over 11 trillion in debt and counting daily. We are maxing out all our lines of credit and then expect the people who have broke the bank to help the poor people? We’re all poor and just don’t know it yet. I agree, we should help the down and outs of society, but expecting a government who can’t manage their own finances to keep someone else’s house in order is a foolish notion. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/289 "2010-02-14T05:57:58Z")
> [@noxxer](#): > > tried to find the origional quote for this, but its apparantly been lost in the sands of time. heres one that says what i want, though 🙂 > > “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” ~ Mahatma Ghandi > > that sums up my view on helping people who are unable to help themselves… it raises us all up Let me ask you this: Do you think it is _possible_ that we would help our weakest members to such a degree that it would hurt us all? Can you envision such a scenario? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/290 "2010-02-19T21:36:24Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > What do you mean by “we are giving”? “We” don’t create the GDP and then divide it up. The GDP is just a number that measures the sum total of economic activity. Different wealth percentiles will have incomes that are a higher or lower percentage of GDP in different years based on lots of different factors. > > You are making the fallacy of treating the economy as a fixed pie that is divided up among the participants. That is not correct. The pie can be increased in size. Those that you believe “we are giving” more to are actually creating more. I agree, that the size of the pie is not fixed but I also think that it is silly to think that the market always distributes the pie fairly or equitably. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/291 "2010-02-19T22:30:38Z")
What do you mean by “fairly” and “equitably”? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/292 "2010-02-21T22:05:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > It’s currently a Ponzi scheme, and even your suggestion appears to just push out the date we drive off a cliff. How is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/293 "2010-02-21T23:59:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me ask you this: Do you think it is _possible_ that we would help our weakest members to such a degree that it would hurt us all? Can you envision such a scenario? Let me turn that around. Do you think it is _possible_ that in providing a robust social net, the benefits spread to everyone? That is, could increased personal tax rates serve as an investment? If society as a whole is doing well, couldn’t that make individual benefits grow? Can you envision such a scenario? More to the point, can’t we look at individual household income rates under different scenarios to get an answer, rather that just spitballing on the internet based on partisan pablum? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/294 "2010-02-22T00:13:17Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > How is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? It’s a Ponzi scheme and explanations trying to say otherwise are lame. Do you have more compelling answers than the writer (Mitchell Zuckoff) of [this article](http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm). The reasons he listed are pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Punoqllads](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d2c977/32.png) [@Punoqllads](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Punoqllads)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/295 "2010-02-22T11:07:30Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > How is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? It’s a Ponzi scheme in that it depends upon new [del]suckers[/del]taxpayers continually depositing money in greater and greater amounts over time. Doubly so when you hear people talking about the “Social Security Trust Fund” as if there were some magic safety deposit box when it’s actually a slush fund that we loaned to ourselves and have already spent. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/296 "2010-02-22T20:36:48Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > It’s a Ponzi scheme in that it depends upon new [del]suckers[/del]taxpayers continually depositing money in greater and greater amounts over time. Doubly so when you hear people talking about the “Social Security Trust Fund” as if there were some magic safety deposit box when it’s actually a slush fund that we loaned to ourselves and have already spent. Are you equally unhappy about the fact that the money you put into your savings account at the bank is not just sitting there in the vault? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/297 "2010-02-25T17:24:46Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > It’s a Ponzi scheme and explanations trying to say otherwise are lame. > > Do you have more compelling answers than the writer (Mitchell Zuckoff) of [this article](http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm). The reasons he listed are pathetic. Why are they pathetic? ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/298 "2010-02-25T17:30:15Z")
> [@Punoqllads](#): > > It’s a Ponzi scheme in that it depends upon new [del]suckers[/del]taxpayers continually depositing money in greater and greater amounts over time. Doubly so when you hear people talking about the “Social Security Trust Fund” as if there were some magic safety deposit box when it’s actually a slush fund that we loaned to ourselves and have already spent. Every single insurance program relies on new payments to cover current and future liabilties. If SS is a ponzi scheme, so is every single public and private insurance fund in the country – SS is actually much better capitalized than the vast majority of public and private pension funds a lot of whom may collapse over the next couple of decades if the economy continues to stutter, as is eminently possible. And the trust fund is subject to the same laws, terms and conditions as every other trust fund in America. It contains US bonds which the government legally has to pay when surrendered. Taxes will just have to be raised on high earners to pay them when it’s needed. And that’s only fair when you consider the history of the fund. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/299 "2010-02-25T17:47:48Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > Every single insurance program relies on new payments to cover current and future liabilties. Incorrect. There are private pension funds that held in trust that are financially healthy enough to pay out retiree benefits even though no new contributions are coming in (e.g. the company that created the pension is bankrupt.) > [@](#): > > It contains US bonds which the government legally has to pay when surrendered. Ha! I wouldn’t count on it. History has shown governments will default on their bonds if they are backed into a corner. Nobody thought Russia would default on their bonds in 1998, and yet they did. The USA also defaulted on bonds in 1933. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872/300 "2010-02-25T20:56:04Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Incorrect. There are private pension funds that held in trust that are financially healthy enough to pay out retiree benefits even though no new contributions are coming in (e.g. the company that created the pension is bankrupt.) A pension is not an insurance program. if you might have to pay out something immediately, like a new insurance company does, then you have to use money coming in for at least some claims. Social Security was set up to pay out immediately. You may not like it, but any other policy would have been stupid in the middle of a depression. > [@](#): > > Ha! I wouldn’t count on it. History has shown governments will default on their bonds if they are backed into a corner. Nobody thought Russia would default on their bonds in 1998, and yet they did. The USA also defaulted on bonds in 1933. [Here is a cite](http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/21/was-there-ever-a-default-on-us/print) for those wondering what the fuck he’s talking about. Of course the “default” is just not paying off in gold when we went off the gold standard, not a real default. **Ruminator** is now heading off to hiss FDR at the Trans-Luxe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-the-idea-that-fiscal-conservatives-hate-poor-people/527872.md?page=16)