Speak Out: Social Security Disability on Verge of Insolvency

Replies (30)

• I bet Mr. Hope and Change can fix it.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Aug 21, 2011, at 8:49 PM

• Disability should never have been a SS responsibility.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Aug 21, 2011, at 9:15 PM

• Hopefully (though not likely) the politicians in DC will let this program die.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Aug 21, 2011, at 9:39 PM

• dtower, hope you never qualify for this program.

  -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 6:11 AM

• Good point DToweer and Old John, I guess they can depend on their local churches.

  -- Posted by say hey on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 7:17 AM

• Enemy of the State wrote:

  "What really peeves me is that most Republicans, and a few Democrats call Social Security and Medicare "entitlements", lumping them in with welfare, and medicaid."

  If you look up the word 'entitlement' in the dictionary, you'll see that Social Security and Medicare fit the definition. To be sure, they fit it more properly than do Welfare and Medicaid.

  I've noticed lately that there seems to be a revolt against that word, even though it is a perfectly fitting word for the programmes.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 8:16 AM

• What did Roy Blunt and Jo Ann Emerson have to do with Libya. I thought that was a 'kinetic military operation' that did not require the approval of the Congress, even after the War Powers Act timeframe had expired.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 8:20 AM

• Sorry, forgot the question mark (?) in the previous post...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 8:20 AM

• Enemy of the State wrote:

  "I have paid into Social Security all my life from the age of 14, and still do."

  And therefore, I gather, you feel you are 'entitled' to payments therefrom. Yet, you fault Republicans for calling it an 'entitlement'. Your argument has me scratching my head in disbelief...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 8:52 AM

• Shapey,

  I think people resent being lumped into the same group as welfare. You are correct Social Security and Medicare are entitlements by virtue of workers paying all of their lives for it. And as you have explained before, Congress can jerk the rug out from under us at any time they choose.

  I think where the misnomer comes in is calling welfare entitlements. People are not entitled to welfare unless you consider the politicians telling them so to get their vote.

  Totally non politically correct but we need to straighten out our definitions...... Entitlements are what we truly are entitled to, Welfare should be called what it is, a handout.

  If this puts a burr under anyone's saddle... TS!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 9:41 AM

• Sorry for misspelling your name Shapley... my fingers cannot keep up.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 9:42 AM

• One is 'entitled' to an 'entitlement' if they meet the criteria established to do so. Thus, if the requirements for a citizen to be eligible for welfare spedifies a monthly income below 'x' amount of dollars to qualify, every citizen who makes below 'x' amount of dollars per month in 'entitled' to welfare.

  In the broadest sense, the term 'entitlement' is assigned to any payments made by the government to or on behalf of individuals - welfare payments, pensions, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

  In the strictest sense, it would apply only to those payments to which 'entitlement' is a condition of enrollment and contribution - Social Security, Medicare, Pensions, for example, but not Welfare and Medicaid. However, those distinctions continue the fraud that Social Security and Medicare contributions are unique and earmarked solely for those programmes. I have struggled endlessly on this board and elsewhere to expose that fraud, with limited success.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 10:00 AM

• Dexter and Sey Hey,

  Instead of paying these people disability for the rest of their lives, the money would be much better spent retraining and/or educating the disabled for jobs that their disabilty would allow them to do.

  It makes no sense whatsoever for say a construction worker with a bad back to collect taxpayer funded disability for life, when he/she could be trained or educated for a career that involves no physical labor, allowing the former construction worker the dignity of making his/her own living.

  This would be known as a hand-up, as opposed to the current hand-out system.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 10:04 AM

• In the strictest sense, it would apply only to those payments to which 'entitlement' is a condition of enrollment and contribution - Social Security, Medicare, Pensions, for example, but not Welfare and Medicaid. However, those distinctions continue the fraud that Social Security and Medicare contributions are unique and earmarked solely for those programmes. I have struggled endlessly on this board and elsewhere to expose that fraud, with limited success.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 10:00 AM

  Shapley back in the day when I had little time to worry about it and believed everything the government told me, I would have argued with you. I now understand what you are saying. If there ever was an honest intention for the SS program to do what it was billed at in the beginning, which I do not believe there was... Congress has totally gutted it.

  Today, my belief is that the original intention of the New Deal was to one day cause near total dependance on the Federal Government by the citizens of this country. They are nearly there.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 10:20 AM

• Easy there EOS, DT, I don't think was referring to veterans. A lot of those Dana jobs are still in America a little farther south.

  If retraining is what folks seek, there are plenty of private institutions that will be happy to compete for that business without government involvement.

  -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Aug 22, 2011, at 12:04 PM

• Brevity, EOS, brevity!

  -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Aug 23, 2011, at 10:28 AM

• Enemy of the State wrote:

  "What the hell is a "kinetic operation"."

  That's what I asked when Mr. Obama used the term to describe what he was doing in Libya. He said that the operation did not fall under the auspices of the War Powers Act because it was a 'kinetic operation', and therefore he did not have to ask Congress for authority to continue it. Congress, lilly-livered louses that they are, opted to pass on pressing the issue, thus giving the President the dictatorial powers he desires, an American Caesar, if you will.

  ________

  "Well, Shapley, your mistake is in using the correct definition of "entitlement"."

  The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.

  ________

  "What your scummy Republicans have done is to lump Welfare, Medicad, two programs of dole, in with programs that we have been forced to pay for, Social Security, and Medicare, to make the latter two programs seem to the ignorant and the stupid, of which America is filled to brim with, like they are some type of hand out programs as well."

  Actually, the ingorant and/or stupid are the ones who believe they are not handout programmes as well. We pay taxes under FICA, which go into the general fund. Monies used to pay for Social Security and Medicare are drawn from the general fund, the same as any other programme. There is no 'lock box', there is no earmarking of the monies, there is just tax monies in and tax monies out.

  They are the same, whether you wish to believe it so or not. You have been misled, as have been most of the people, into believing that your paying taxes under FICA entitles you to the benefits of the programmes. That is not so, and the Supreme Court has said as much as 1960, in Flemming vs. Nestor:

  "A PERSON COVERED BY THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN OLD-AGE BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. PP. 608-611.

  "(A) THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARE BASED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.

  "(B) TO ENGRAFT UPON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM A CONCEPT OF "ACCRUED PROPERTY RIGHTS" WOULD DEPRIVE IT OF THE FLEXIBILITY AND BOLDNESS IN ADJUSTMENT TO EVER-CHANGING CONDITIONS WHICH IT DEMANDS AND WHICH CONGRESS PROBABLY HAD IN MIND WHEN IT EXPRESSLY RESERVED THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 23, 2011, at 10:38 AM

• Shapley, That word "probably" is reassuring in the courts decision making process.

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Aug 23, 2011, at 10:52 AM

• Old John,

  I suspect they 'probably' had many things on their mind when they created the programme, but setting up generation after generation of dependent citizens who would 'probably' vote for the party that keeps the money flowing was 'probably' uppermost at the time, and 'probably' remains uppermost today...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 23, 2011, at 11:01 AM

• They should have never and need to stop giving free checks to the illegals that come into our country,and social security to their elderly parents that they get over here that never paid a cent into it. They need to keep their sticky little paws out of the social security pot.

  Free medical,yes give it to them once,call in ice and have them picked up and deported back,they could round all the illegals up if they wanted to,they just don't want to. Tea Party gang keep up the good work, if not for you most people in this country would still be asleep! You set the alarm clock and brother keep it ringing before we lose everything to a bunch of highly educated,idiots and thieves that don't care about anything but filling their own pockets (greed and this is what is killing this country). I think these so called highly educated people we are sending to run our country have no common sense at all. They think nothing of giving billions to other countries and will do nothing for our soldiers, elderly except try to scare them into passing something using strong arm tactics. Shame on the white house who spends billions on jet fuel,parties,and entourage of people invited to come along at our expense. How about staying home for a day or so that would help our pocket book immensely, and the old people and soldiers can afford to stay in their homes and feed thier families.

  Wake up America,our time is running out, we all need to pay attention to what they are trying to do to our country and to you. If not for yourself for your kids and grandkids!

  -- Posted by monk on Tue, Aug 23, 2011, at 11:35 AM

• The programs are abused and need meaningful reform. Not just words true reform. "Disability" has become a crutch for a lot of lazy people.

  -- Posted by jpb2 on Wed, Aug 24, 2011, at 6:22 AM

• Helvering vs. Davis ruled that the programme was constitutional, precisely because:

  "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way"

  Thus, as I've said, they are simply taxes, the same as any other, and are not (and cannot be) reserved solely for the purpose of Social Security.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 24, 2011, at 9:19 AM

• EOS,

  You did, in fact, originate the 'ignorant and stupid' comment, which I merely repeated as a form of counterpoint. Your post which, as you note, has conveniently dissappeared, read as follows (from the quoted section in my reply):

  "What your scummy Republicans have done is to lump Welfare, Medicad, two programs of dole, in with programs that we have been forced to pay for, Social Security, and Medicare, to make the latter two programs seem to the ignorant and the stupid, of which America is filled to brim with, like they are some type of hand out programs as well."

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM

• I stand by my comment. Govt. programs enable more poor behavior than they help.

  -- Posted by jpb2 on Wed, Aug 24, 2011, at 2:10 PM

• Some really great comments, thanks.

  Maybe the best answer is for our govt. to reconsider its role ... I don't believe that our forefathers meant for our government to support us, take care of us ... as individuals or even as groups. What is the difference between 'governing' and 'controling' when it comes to government? Go back to less govt. but more personal (and family) responsibility.

  As it is now, with taxation taking more & more of a person's/family's income ... It's become more difficult to take care of ourselves, our families ... so we put our trust in government to use our monies wisely in taking care of us?

  BTW: Whatever happened to the movement someone started calling for our elected leaders to have to pay into SS and Medicare (like the rest of us do) ... Cut out all their taxpayer funded unnecessary travels, etc.?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Aug 25, 2011, at 12:32 AM

• What amazes me is how misinformed most people are regarding social security and disability. No disability is not a part of welfare, those who think so are misguided. All those who scream they want to cut social security because it is draining this country is horribly ignorant of the facts. Social Security and Disability does NOT come from income tax collected like welfare and all other government spending does. Social Security has it's very own tax that is separate and that people pay when they work, if they do not pay they do not get SS benefits. And Social Security plus disability would NOT be in trouble at all if the darn government would not have tipped their hands into those funds "borrowing" the money held for social security to pay all of their pork projects and welfare. Borrowing but never paying it back. When it was originally set up it was set up as a trust fund, still is, but somewhere along the way congress decided they could dip into the trust fund to help meet their budgets. This has gone on for many years and both political parties are to blame. No one has ever tried to stop this and instead work with a realistic budget. If this was done in the private sector there would have been a lawsuit and an arrest for embezzlement.

  -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Thu, Aug 25, 2011, at 8:08 AM

• adidas ... Great to 'see' you!

  "Social Security has it's very own tax that is separate and that people pay when they work, if they do not pay they do not get SS benefits."

  Okay ... Where does the funding for SSI (Is it Supplemental Security Income?) come in? A relative received it for about 2 decades, when she became disabled (in her case, totally disabled ... not just 'unable to perform' her chosen occupation) but hadn't paid enough into SS to qualify for SS Disability.

  Another lady I know received it for several years, until she was eligible to draw SS on her former husband's SS.

  Quite a few women of the older generations never worked outside the home, or didn't work enough to qualify for SS ... These women receive SS based upon their husbands records; I think it amounts to approximately 1/2 of the husband's SS income.

  Guess that's one of the things that the SS program added somewhere along the way, as well as SS for children whose father had died.

  An aside: SS wasn't actually meant to pay out all that much ... considering the average male life span at the time was ... 65!

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Aug 25, 2011, at 8:04 PM

• Hi guru! I forgot about SSI- that is pure welfare. I was referring to straight SS Disability, not SSI. And yes they did not expect the payouts to last until someone was 100. BUT- if the government would have kept their hands OUT of it, and had not dipped thier hands into a supposed "trust fund" then SS would not be in trouble.

  I don't know if it was set up to at the beginning that a woman could draw a portion of her husband's SS or when that became law.... that would be a Shaply Hunter question. But I could understand why since back in the day a woman stayed home and raised the kids, took care of the house and cooked the meals, you know the good ole days when women didn't work. It seems to me that this part of SS is outdated and should be revised.

  Did you know know if a woman's husband dies and she has kids, not only will she receive a SS check, but each child will get a monthly SS check as well?

  -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:18 PM

• Did you know know if a woman's husband dies and she has kids, not only will she receive a SS check, but each child will get a monthly SS check as well?

  Is there some reason they shouldn't?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 8:39 PM

• Face it, Social Security started as a ponzi scheme and when it started to collaspe the government propped it up and added a mix of liberal welfare and conservative compassion.

  Social Security was never meant to be something to look forward to but a means to keep those without family to take care for them out of the poor house.

  Why not replace it with a low risk investment plan and offer a minimum welfare plan for those that weren't able to or didn't participate?

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Aug 26, 2011, at 9:30 PM