Why are republicans targeting SSDI benefits and not SS benefits too?

[SammyWinstonJack]

Are they trying to pit those who retired on SS against those who went on SS disability insurance?

Seems to me that if they are going to cut SSDI for any reason, too be fair, SS benefits should be cut also.

The two programs are funded through payroll taxes.

Those on SSDI have worked a certain numbers of years and have contributed to the trust fund through payroll taxes, therefore they are insured, same as those who retired on SS

Republicans are treating the two programs differently.

Can't steal from one group and leave the other uncut.


The rotten lowlife scumbag reeps need to keep their dirty paw$$$ off of both programs.

[djean111]

1. Camel's nose under the tent.

Plus - they can screech FRAUD!!!!! There have even been some posts here lately, newbies swearing that some of their very own friends and family are frauds on Medicaid or disability. My advice was to get a better class of friends and family, and turn in the cheaters. But - they can resurrect the Welfare Queen.

Anyway, easier to fuck around with a program one has to qualify for. All you have to do to get Social Security is not expire. Tricky for them, though - the banks want to gamble with the fund, but the corporations do not want to match contributions. I am sure Washington has something up its sleeve, though.

[daleanime]

4. Don't you know?

70's are the new 50's.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. Qualify for or not, the recipient still paid into the trust fund and is entitled to collect.

It's not like the government is giving those on SSDI any free money. They are not free loaders by any means.

Cut both programs or leave SSDI alone. It's only fair.

One can be on SSDI and have paid into the trust fund through payroll taxes for 30 40 yrs depending on when they started paying into and when they started to collect benefits.

I know someone who pay into it for 41 yrs before he had to apply. Only four yrs before he could collect SS at 62. Now he is facing benefit cuts because he went on SSDI before 62 and has to stay on until he hits 66 when he can transition to SS.


Something really with this bullshit the reeps are pulling.

[djean111]

29. "Fair" is not going to be in play. They already know all of what you said, and they do not care.

The average Gooper is just going to hear the word "fraud".

[MiniMe]

100. I'm not sure that everybody on SSDI paid in

There are young adults who are unable to work due to physical or mental limitations, they may never have worked. Their parents have worked, but those kids may not have worked. A friend of mine has a son with Cerebral Palsy, and he has never worked. He is a young adult now, medical is covered by medicare or medicaid (not sure which) and he gets SSDI and lives with his parents because he can't live independently.

[PotatoChip]

103. If they have never worked, they would be on SSI- not SSDI.

SSI is funded through the general fund, and is a needs-based disability program.

SSDI is more like SS in that is funded by payroll taxes. One has to have worked and paid into SSDI via their payroll taxes for a certain number of years, as well as having become disabled to be qualified.

[MiniMe]

115. Thanks, I never really studied that much about it

My cousin is probably on SSDI then. Another of the many reasons to not vote for republicans

[merrily]

104. No, someone who has not worked enough quarters cannot collect OASDI, only, if in need, SSI.

The SSDI portion of OASDI is based on legally forced contributions to the fund, whether contributions of your own or of another contributor (as when a contributor dies and his or her survivors are entitled to collect OASDI). Otherwise, people without sufficient quarters must apply for the portion of welfare for which the disabled or elderly are entitled, but only if they have economic need.

That is why OASDI is called Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, while SSI stand for Social Supplemental Income. IOW, if you have not paid in, you don't get insurance..

I've talked with otherwise relatively intelligent and well informed seniors who insist they are collecting "Social Security," but, after a couple of minutes, it's very clear to me that they are getting SSI, not OASDI, aka"Social Security."

Among other things, Social Security, being an insurance payment, does not look into your other assets to determine your eligibility. It's based on (1) status (age or disability or survivor status; and (2) quarters paid into the fund. Period. A billionaire is entitled to collect.

Eligibility for SSI, however, is based on (1) status and (2) financial need. So, when people talk about things like all the personal questions they get asked to determine their eligibility or continuing eligibility, it's almost certain they mean SSI.

A third possibility is that someone's quarterly contributions to OASDI were so few or salary so low that he or she is eligible for a small OASDI benefit and SSI.

[yeoman6987]

83. Two different pots of money

Simple as that.


Oh that Price is Right lady that was splattered all over TV for months did not help the SSDI cause. She was totally ridiculous.

[ND-Dem]

89. More wingnut bullshit. Money has been moved between funds in the past and the only reason

they're saying it can't be done again is because they want to kill it.

F**K THEM ALL and f**k their enablers. And don't think we don't know who they are.

[merrily]

105. "Simple as that," my ass. Please see Replies 101 and 108 and others on this thread.

[Turbineguy]

2. Every one o' dem disabled

are drivin' Cadillacs!

[daleanime]

3. Divide and conquer......

it's important that we hate ourselves, not our owners.

[99th_Monkey]

5. They go after the most vulnerable first

in this case, the disabled.

Once the disabled are driven into utter destitution to live on our streets,
THEN they will go after the old folks.

These heartless greedy ReThuglicans are the scum of the earth.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. But they are outright stealing from one group that paid into the SS trust fund same as

those who are not being targeted.

One group is more equal than the other....how exactly? I am really trying to understand this.


The funds for both programs came from the same source, that being payroll taxes. The money is still owed to the payee.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. Your SS benefits are determined by how long and at what level you paid in.

You do not have to contribute anything to qualify for SSDI.

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Pretty sur that's SSI. SSDI you have to have worked a certain amount of time and have contributed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. You have to have 40 work credits 20 of which have to be earned in the last ten yr

ending in the yr you become disabled, so that sounds like contribution to me.

The person I know worked 40 yrs, went on ssdi at fifty seven. His benefits as of this yr are $2354/mo before medicare abcd and after he gets $2190.

Since he went on ssdi before 62 he has to stay on until he is at full retirement which for him according to his birth year is 66 and then transition to ss and his benefits stay the same amount.

[brewens]

56. I'm looking at having my second knee replacement. Had the first at 45 and went back

to work. My L&I settlement from that on the job knee injury that resulted in the first "total knee" rated me at 35% disabled. I've got other things going on now too, the same kind of pain in both hips, arthritis and high blood pressure under control with medication. Now at 54, I'm thinking if it really turns out to be a total knee job, I'm pretty much done at my current job. I will at least be looking into applying for dissability and retiring.

My current job is fairly active but not what I would consider hard labor. That I did for 25 or more years though. I always had some kind of distributor warehouse or route driver job. I flat out can't do any of that kind of work any more. It's now gotten to where I'm hurting all the time but I am exceptionally tough. I've made it to work on extra Aleve and determination when I wouldn't blame someone else for bagging it. I like my job though.

I had one job for three years doing commercial hydroseeding and concrete curbing. I should never have taken that one. It was brutal hard physical labor but even at 40, I was still powerful and mobile. I could handle it but the knees were already suspect and that added some real wear and tear. The only thing that saved me on that job was the three month layoff every year to rest and heal up. Being off and collecting "unenjoyment" benefits was a much needed vacation. I was pounded in extreme heat when everyone else was out water skiing and fishing. I didn't feel a bit bad about partying and taking it easy in the winter, courtesy of the Washington state taxpayers. I did however all three years go back to my old beer distributor job for three weeks over the holidays to drive forklift and help out. I was a certified trainer to and they always needed to get a rookie signed off it seemed. I was blackbelt and could tie my shoes with a forklift. That also got me invited to the Christmas party, one of my demands for coming back

I'm glad I've always been one that never resented disabled people. Even one I know that I heard qualified mostly because of alcoholism. The way I looked at it, I wouldn't have wanted that guy working with me, so what would you do with him? He neither gets or asks for a lot. He does minor yard work for a little extra cash and drinks in between. Even if you got him off the sauce, he's a beat up frail little dude. He can't really earn a living and you'd be bumping someone that can, putting him somewhere and accomodating him. Whatever he gets it ain't no two large a month.

Myself though, If I was able to clear two grand a month and have help with the med costs, I'd feel pretty good about it. I'd be able to hang out, read, watch tv and go fishing within 100 miles of where I always lived. A couple of trips to the coast every year to hang out with buddies over there, maybe a few college footaball games, that kind of thing. I'd be perfectly happy.

For having worked steadily since I was 16, aside from three years off on my L&I knee injury ordeal, I really don't think I'm asking a lot.

[thucythucy]

41. I think in order to qualify for SSDI

you have to have worked a minimum number of quarters, and your SSDI payment is contingent on how much money you put into the system.

SSDI stands for Social Security Disability Insurance, was passed in 1956 after a long campaign by labor unions and the American Federation of the Physically Handicapped. It is an insurance program for disabled workers who were not eligible under Workers' Compensation. Workers' Comp is for people disabled on the job, SSDI is for workers (and their dependents) disabled but not while at work.

You're probably thinking of SSI--Supplemental Security Insurance, passed in 1972, which is for people who were disabled before age 22, and have limited income or no income at all. The feds kick in some, the states the rest, and so the monthly amount is dependent on how much the states put in. It is "needs tested"--unlike other Social Security programs.

Both SSI and SSDI are pretty stringent on who is eligible. The process can take years, and people are subject to periodic reviews.

Reagan tried to axe the programs in the early 1980s, causing many people to be kicked off. There were cases of spinal cord injured quadriplegics getting letters saying that they were "cured" and thus no longer needed benefits. There were deaths, even suicides because of this, until Congress passed the Social Security Disability Reform Act of 1984, which enabled people to keep their benefits until their appeals were heard. (The appeal process often took years). After which the Reagan administration relented on their purging of the rolls.

Aside from the money, which isn't very much, SSI enables people with disabilities to get Medicaid, and since prior to the ACA private insurers resolutely refused to insure people with the most serious disabilities, getting on SSI was the only way a PWD could get health insurance.

This is the same old GOP BS, and one of the reasons I object so strongly to the "there's no difference between the two parties" nonsense.

[ND-Dem]

91. +100

[ND-Dem]

90. YES YOU DO.

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes.

SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits."


There is a five-month waiting period for benefits, meaning that the SSA won't pay you benefits for the first five months after you become disabled. The amount of the monthly benefit after the waiting period is over depends on your earnings record, much like the Social Security retirement benefit.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html


SSI, Supplemental Security Income, is the only program that gives disabled people who haven't worked benefits. It pays much less and is funded out of the general budget, not out of Social Security/FICA taxes.

[merrily]

109. Untrue. Read the thread.

[PotatoChip]

111. Umm, no. You have to have worked to qualify for SSDI.

The only way to receive disability benefits if one has never worked is through SSI (not SSDI). SSI is a needs based disability program funded through the general fund.

SSDI is more like SS, in that it is funded by the FICA taxes (aka payroll taxes) one pays into during their working years, prior to becoming disabled.

R's are counting on confusion about these programs to gain acquiescence. Their ultimate goal is to privatize all of SS, and SSDI is tactically a good way to start. Especially since so many people are confused about this.

[Warren Stupidity]

116. mea culpa.

y'all can stop bashing me now.

[Go Vols]

18. You are taxed more for SSI than SSDI

Today, Social Security has two separate systems, Disability (DI) and the more well-known Old-Age/Survivors (OAS). Today, the DI system gets 1.8% in payroll taxes, whereas the larger OAS system collects 10.6%.

http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/01/12/kicking-the-ssdi-can-down-the-road/

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. I was under the assumption that one had to work a certain amount of time in

a job covered by SS and had to contribute.

[thucythucy]

43. That's SSDI--Social Security Disability Insurance.

It was passed in the 1950s to fill the gap left by state systems of Workers' Compensation, which was only for workers disabled on the job, SSDI is for workers who are disabled but not while on the job or because of a work related issue.

SSI--Supplemental Security Income--was passed in 1972, and is for people who became disabled before age 22, and thus couldn't reasonably be expected to have worked the minimum number of quarters required for SSDI.

[ND-Dem]

92. SSI money comes from the general budget, not from FICA/social security taxes. DI = SSDI and

it's funded with social security taxes.

SSI = supplemental security income, funded through the income tax. It's administered by the social security department, but isn't OASDI.

[merrily]

110. SSI is not a social security program. SSDI is a social security program, as is OAS.

SSI is a welfare program not funded by payroll taxes. Eligibility is not based on quarters worked "on the books" (aka, contributions to payroll taxes). It is based on financial need, whether you contributed a dime in payroll taxes or not.

[merrily]

108. And, after they make Social Security a needs based program, like welfare,

they'll go after welfare.

The goal is to make sure billionaires pay as little in taxes as possible. They could care less who suffers or dies as a result. All the "logic" pure bs, just a step in the process toward the real goal. Any allegedly plausible argument will do.

[Cali_Democrat]

6. But both parties are the same!

Elections don't matter!

Third way!

Rawr!

---------

Hopefully some folks will rethink after their SS benefits are cut.

Elections matter, folks.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. third way democratic leaders frequently argue for SS cuts.

But for some reason that just gets forgotten.

[merrily]

112. Hmm. Perhaps you are thinking of traditional Democrats, rather than New Democrats.

The Democratic Party has always had its conservative wing, but, officially, we've only had two New Democrat Presidents. (I use "New Democrat Presidents" only because that is how they have chosen to use the term, as in the "New Democrat Senate Caucus" being the official name of that caucus.)

Bill Clinton: he and members of his White House not only ended "welfare as we know it," but bragged/crowed about so doing. NAFTA. Lobbied Democrats in Congress for repeal of Glass Steagall, etc.

During the Obama administration, not realizing he could be heard, Clinton offered to help Ryan get Democratic votes for "reform." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-medicare-election-give-me-a-call/

Barack Obama was not only the first Democratic President to refer to other social programs as "entitlements," but he and his White House, many of whom also "served" under Clinton, put a fair amount of effort into cutting them.

Obama went back and forth about Social Security while campaigning in 2008, saying things on both sides of the issue. However, as time for his inauguration approached, he was talking about what later came to be called a "grand bargain."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

The first budget he sent to Capitol Hill provided for cuts to home heating fuel subsidies for the needy. (Goolsbee tried to defend that on the Daily Show by citing decreases in the price of oil. Stewart pointed out that the decreases were in the price of crude; the costs of home heating fuel had risen. Goolsbee practically shrieked, "You people are so well-informed." (Note: Not: "Really? I didn't know that.&quot

But for people at the Daily Show having done their homework, Goolsbee would have gotten with snowing viewers.

Obama's White House floated chained CPI, which, when asked by reporters, Pelosi said was not a cut to OASDI, though it has the same economic effect as a cut.

Before the final vote passing Obamacare (by reconciliation, btw-little-mentioned fact), he appointed what came to be known as the "Cat Food" Commission. (Paul Ryan's appointment that commission was the first many had heard of one Paul Ryan.)

While in talks with Republicans, according to John Conyers, it was "Obama, not Boehner, not Cantor," who put cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

After people did not act on the recommendations of that commission, the White House appointed the possibly unconstitutional "Super Committee," charged with reaching a "grand bargain" that Congress would have no power to veto. His White House also proposed the sequester, to fail safe in case the grand bargain was not reached.

By then, among other things: (1) media was finally mentioning the OWS movement and the term "99" was gaining common currency (no pun intended); and (2) Obama was in full re-election mode, as were most members of the House and a fair number of Senators . Neither of those things were conducive to Democrats continuing to emphasize "entitlement reform."

It is no coincidence that economic inequality has been increasing faster than ever before in the years after official formation of the DLC, which brought New Democrat policies to the fore within the Party, or that the current economic recovery has helped Wall Street a lot more than it has helped Main Street.




Do differences exist? Yes. And the claim or implication that most Democrats like me are saying there is no difference at all is false, plain and simple. But, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. It's a mystery to me why people who have no economic interest in New Democrat policies seem so eager to show up traditional Democrats who are demanding that New Democrats need to step up the differences between them and Republicans.

Right now, it is still not politically safe for Democratic politicians to say certain things. And every candidate has to get the votes of his or her base if he or she wants election or re-election. And that reality is in great part due to presence within the party of traditional Democrats, who are getting more and more disgusted with New Democrat policies.
But, look around and listen. New Democrat policies are getting defended left and right by people who either are actually, or are pretending to be, simply "rank and file" Democrats.

The strongest differences are on so-called cultural issues--and even some of those are not as strong as they once were. Let's not forget: the Missouri moron who talked about "real rape" once debated a male Democratic opponent who ran on no abortion absent rape or incest. However, Obama did ultimately "evolve" all the way back to his 1994 position for equal marriage as he contemplated his re-election campaign. (Whether that was more or less forced by HRC and the fact that one in 8 bundlers for the Democratic Party is gay is up for grabs. What is certain is that, IMO, the position that a President takes is influential and I am glad Obama took the position he did.)

As for the economic differences, yes, there are also some of those, but they are nowhere near as dramatic as some claim. And, if and when the traditional base finally shuts up and sits down, you can bet the economic differences will get less dramatic.

[Hoyt]

8. They are targeting SS. They feel that this will encourage a complete overhaul of the system.

Personally, I think we would have been better to tackle this back when Democrats had more votes. But, no one wanted to touch it.. The attacks are only going to get worse, no matter how much we feel it's wrong.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Do you know how SS and SSDI are funded?

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. Through payroll taxes.

[Thinkingabout]

13. How does SSDI get finded?

[dpibel]

20. FICA

Just like SS old-age benefits.

What is the significance of your question?

[Thinkingabout]

28. And with a vote in the Congress to move the funds to SSDI. Many of those

Receiving SSDI has never paid FICA, thereby putting a burden on FICA and American workers. I don't know if a Republican Congress is going to vote allowing the funds to be transferred, elections has consequences and this one may hurt some truly disabled.

[dpibel]

33. How many?

What is your source for the assertion that many on SSDI have never paid into FICA?

Any minor who receives SS survivors' benefits probably hasn't paid into FICA either. That doesn't constitute a burden on those who have. It's just the way the system works.

[Thinkingabout]

42. You brought up a source which has not paid into FICA, dependent children who are disabled.

I know of another man who is 50 who has drawn SSDI for his adult life, he has never paid FICA. I know of others who has drawn SSDI mostly because of substance abuse problems and hardly paid into FICA. Others has been getting benefits because they say they have bad nerves.

[thucythucy]

44. Cool story, bro.

I doubt drug abuse is the sole reason why anyone is getting SSI or SSDI. Maybe they're on drugs or alcohol dependent now, but there has to be some other underlying problem for them to get benefits. Generally speaking disability legislation is written specifically to exclude folks who are drug or alcohol dependent. The Americans with Disabilities Act, for instance, has a whole section of who is NOT covered by the Act, which includes those with active drug dependency, even though right wing BS artists sling that shit about the ADA "protecting drunks and drug addicts" all the time.

No one gets SSI or SSDI because "they say they have bad nerves." You need a doctor to certify you're eligible, and doctors who try to scam the system can end up losing their licenses or going to jail. If you're schizophrenic, or otherwise psychotic, or have an intense anxiety disorder, maybe you can get on. But you need at least one shrink to say it's so. And the process can often take years.

Children of adults who get SSDI (for which you have to have worked a minimum number of years, and paid into the system for a minimum amount of quarters) get kicked off the system as soon as they become adults, unless they're disabled as well (in which case they'd be getting SSI to begin with).

Your story reeks of right wing BS--the same anti-disability stories I get from libertarians and Rushbots.

If you know someone defrauding the system--turn them in. Otherwise stop playing into right wing memes.

[raccoon]

47. Good post. nt

[Thinkingabout]

54. Nope, no bs, listen to some of the people whp appears on Judge Judy, plenty with

Bad nerves. Former flower child got SSDI because if his substance abuse, they are out there, denial is bs. Sounds like you ma be defending those who thinks is okay not to work except for working the system. The kids who gets off of SSDI when they become adults, you are wrong. Do you think 50 is not an adult?

I I know of this many it should be was for you to find them also.

[thucythucy]

58. Judge Judy? Seriously? Judge Judy is your source on SSDI fraud?

I thought you said you personally KNEW these people. Now you're saying you saw this on Judge Judy?

Sorry, I still call BS, especially now that you seem to be changing your story.

I know disability law. I know some of the folks who helped write it. And yes, kids who get SSDI because their parents are disabled lose their benefits at age 22, unless they themselves are disabled. That's the law. If you know someone who is breaking that law, why don't you report them?

I'm not defending people "working the system." I'm attacking bogus, right wing media bullshit being regurgitated on what is supposed to be a progressive Democratic site. Repeating the bullshit fed to us by Fox News and Judge Judy only furthers right wing efforts to wipe out Social Security for everyone, something that's been a right wing wet dream since the system was enacted in 1935.

"I know this many..." No you don't. If you did, you'd report them. Why don't you report them?

Because you don't "know" about these people at all. You're just repeating bullshit you've heard, or voicing suspicions you have about people you probably barely know.

"Listen to some of the people who appear on Judge Judy."

Okay, I'll bite. Find me a specific episode, and I'll watch for the bullshit. Name me an episode number--since you're so on top of this, and are such a fan of JJ, it should be no problem for you to cite me a specific episode.

Edited to add: and did you follow the link provided to you in post 49? According to the General Accounting Office--the watchdog for Congress--the most stringent investigation of SSDI fraud found an improper payment rate of 0.4%. That's less than one half of one percent of all SSDI recipients are getting benefits improperly. And even that's an inflated number, because people on SSI or SSDI are supposed to report ALL their income, and sometimes folks forget to file the paperwork needed to report they worked three hours six months ago babysitting somebody else's kids, and an instance like that is counted as "fraud."

Less than one half of one percent. But sure, let's go after all those free-riding cripples.

What a load of unadulterated crap.

[Thinkingabout]

61. I have provided several sources, yes I personally know of adults who have received funds from

SSDI, people have appeared on Judge Judy and when what is the nature of their disability they respond with "bad nerves". One adult who was a one time flower child was on SSDI because of his substance abuse. As far as reporting them I have.

I can call bs since you do not have any proof of no fraud in the SSDI program. Try looking up Eric Conn in Kentucky, he received 3.9 million in fees and along with some others was able to get SSDI benefits for those who was not disable. It was a racket.

You may not know anyone on disability, but just because you don't know anyone does not mean there isn't. Your ability of personally knowing anyone does not make my information bs, try the bs on someone who doesn't know, it does nit work here.

[thucythucy]

68. You have not provided "several sources"

you've provided your own most likely bogus stories, and a fucking episode of Judge Judy!

I cited Social Security law, and a General Accounting Office review (actually, that was a link in another post, which you evidently still haven't bothered to read) that found less than one half of one percent of SSDI recipients were getting benefits inappropriately, and not even all those were instances of "fraud."

And you obviously haven't been reading my posts, because I know lots of people with disabilities, many of whom are on either SSI or SSDI. I know several spinal cord injured quadriplegics. I know a woman--totally blind--who was at one point cut off her benefits because the government lost her paperwork and she had to prove, again, that she was blind. I guess the doctors report and the certified seeing eye dog weren't evidence enough.

And I've asked you, several times now, why haven't you reported all this fraud you know about? Report the fraud, and then post the account of the investigation and subsequent arrest you were able to bring about.

I'll ask again: if you know of fraud, why don't you report it?

Quick answer: because you're pulling these stories out of your ass.

BTW--asking someone to prove a negative "You have no proof of no fraud" is a definite giveaway that your argument is bogus.

Can you prove there are no flying kangaroos on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy? Then I guess it must be so, right?

[Thinkingabout]

86. Go back and read the thread, they are there.

[merrily]

102. Just as an experiment, try applying for OASDI or SSI and see how "easy" it is to collect.

[ND-Dem]

84. BULLSHIT

What Is SSDI?

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits."

Under SSDI, a disabled person's spouse and children dependents are eligible to receive partial dependent benefits, called auxiliary benefits. However, only adults over the age of 18 can receive the SSDI disability benefit.

There is a five-month waiting period for benefits, meaning that the SSA won't pay you benefits for the first five months after you become disabled. The amount of the monthly benefit after the waiting period is over depends on your earnings record, much like the Social Security retirement benefit.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html

You've been corrected and educated multiple times but you just keep doubling down. Is it OK to use the "L" word yet, I wonder?

Go back to free republic.

[Thinkingabout]

93. Since I told you earlier adults receive SSDI looks like I already was educated.

I am glad you have finally have gotten educated. BTW, adults qualify for SSDI and have never paid into FICA.

You posted this:

MORE BULLSHIT from the big bullshitter. You have to have worked, and quite some time, to





draw SSDI. NO ONE can get it without having worked.

Now you post:

However, only adults over the age of 18 can receive the SSDI disability benefit.
You need to check your bs meter, looks like you have bs yourself.

[ND-Dem]

95. That doesn't even make sense. But I'm glad to know you're not just misinformed, you're actively

dishonest.

What didn't you understand about:

Social Security Disability Insurance pays benefits to you and certain members of your family if you are "insured," meaning that you worked long enough and paid Social Security taxes.

http://www.ssa.gov/disability/


Tell me more lies about these people you know who spent their whole lives living off SSDI and never did a lick of work.

You didn't make any claim just about adults being able to receive benefits.

You made a claim about adults WHO'D NEVER WORKED being able to receive benefits, and you made a claim about MASSIVE FRAUD IN SSDI. And you puked up that bullshit all over this board.

And now you pretend you never said it, cause you got called on your bullshit.

[Packerowner740]

97. A minor recieving SSDI payments due to a parent recieving SSDI payments

Have their payments stop automatically the month after they turn 18. This is what happened to my son. Unless they are still in high school, then the payments end the month after the end of the school year.

[dpibel]

49. Bad nerves?

"Over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts."

— Rand Paul on Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 in a speech in New Hampshire

You mean bad nerves as in anxious?

Again, you are asking us to take your word for anecdotal information and to believe that it proves something.

Here are some real numbers you might find interesting:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/16/rand-paul/rand-paul-says-most-people-receive-disability-back/

(Apologies to all for posting long link. Can't get the imbed to work.)

[thucythucy]

59. Don't apologize.

Long links and actual data are precisely what's needed to counter this anecdotal right wing garbage. Like Reagan's "welfare queen" and Nixon's "welfare Cadillac," bogus anecdotes about people with disabilities as unscrupulous moochers "working the system" are a staple of those who want to kill Social Security. It's what conservatives have wanted since 1935, and they've never been so close to realizing their dream as they are today.

What's so discouraging to me is to see this "SSDI fraud" shit posted on Democratic Underground.

Anyway, thanks for the link. As I said, precisely what's needed in this conversation.

[freshwest]

121. Oh, we have a Rand Paul quote. Sorry I spent so much time answering the guy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026098895#post120

What a waste of time. I really do need to read entire threads instead of just trying to answer BS like that. If I'd seen the RP quote I'd know the impeccable source being used, along with Judge Judy, FFS... And she's not a SS lawyer, nor a lawmaker.

She's an entertainer who makes her money snarking at people unfortunate enough to need the money from being on her show. The reason there is a limit on the awards is that the guests are paid that amount. It's a sham legal show and low-information voters fall for it.

The doubling down and quoting RP just earned a place on my special list.

[ND-Dem]

81. MORE BULLSHIT from the big bullshitter. You have to have worked, and quite some time, to

draw SSDI. NO ONE can get it without having worked.

What Is SSDI?

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits."

There is a five-month waiting period for benefits, meaning that the SSA won't pay you benefits for the first five months after you become disabled. The amount of the monthly benefit after the waiting period is over depends on your earnings record, much like the Social Security retirement benefit.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html

You're all over this board catapulting the propaganda and bullshit, and linking to winger sites. Go home.

[ND-Dem]

85. That's a BALD FACED LIE. You have to have paid into Social Security to get SSDI.

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes.

SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes.

SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits."

The amount of the monthly benefit after the waiting period is over depends on your earnings record

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html

[freshwest]

120. SSI is for those who never paid in, not SSDI. SSDI is based on money paid in while working.

Those who have never worked get SSI which is controlled by states. It is not the federal programs, not SS or SSDI. There is a huge difference in how it is funded and how payments are determined.

The only way that a person who never worked or paid in gets federal benefits is as the child of a worker who paid in. A worker who PAID. Or a spouse who never paid in, but who was married to do someone who did pay in.

There is no 'free ride' on SS or SSDI as the GOP and their pundits say. This is used a RW smear on those who recieve SSDI. SSDI is called a pension annuity, that is it's an insurance policy. It is an integral part of SS.

What you are talking about is SSI, which is what is traditionally called welfare. SS and SSDI are not welfare. Rush has been calling SS welfare for over twenty years. He is a lying POS, but the meme has been repeated so many years people accept it as true.

All of this parsing by the GOP is set up to do is to set people against each other with disinformation. Fight it with the truth, because a quick google of the official government sites will reveal it.

There is a demographic angle to the SS and SSDI issue. We have a lot of people retiring, and the system was designed for each generation to pay for each other. What those who are drawing did for society should not be forgotten. The younger workers, some are doing well and have no problem paying in. Others have low wage jobs that don't generate revenue. That is another argument used.

It is also an error, but I don't have time for this right now.

[ND-Dem]

94. YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. SSDI is an easy target.

They have and will continue to paint SSDI recipients as greedy takers. The fact that their voting base is way over-represented in SSDI demographics will be no deterrent at all to these attacks. They've got the "vote for your own demise" act down pat.

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. How can they say that SSDI recipients are greedy takers when they funded their benefits?

If they want to say that SSDI recipients are greedy takers then they also have to say the same about SS recipients.


Which they probably do also.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. a. they will lie with absolutely no compunction.

b. SSDI recipients need not have paid anything into the program.

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. Then why are their benefits based on what they paid in?

[thucythucy]

45. I think you're confusing SSDI with SSI.

See my post above.

The children of SSDI recipients can get benefits, which they lose as soon as they turn 21, unless they themselves are disabled, in which case they'd also be eligible for SSI. But I think the vast majority of SSDI recipients are workers who at some point became too disabled to continue working.

You can get the SSDI eligibility requirements from the SSA website. Off hand, I think you have to have worked a certain minimum number of quarters within the past ten years to be eligible. My recollection is that it's five years of quarters within the last ten, but I could be wrong about that. The point is--SSDI is for people who have paid into the system.

SSI is for people who became disabled before age 21, and thus couldn't reasonably be expected to have worked the minimum required for SSDI.

[ND-Dem]

72. no, ssi is for people who became disabled at any time but didn't, for whatever reason, pay enough

into the system to qualify for ssdi. doesn't matter when they became disabled.

[thucythucy]

74. You could be right.

Do you have a link or reference for that?

My source is the ABC-CLIO Companion to the Disability Rights Movement, which is an encyclopedia on disability and disability law. But I notice it was published in 1997, so the law may have been changed since then.

[ND-Dem]

76. I AM right.

What Is SSI?

Supplemental Security Income is a program that is strictly need-based, according to income and assets, and is funded by general fund taxes. SSI is called a "means-tested program," meaning it has nothing to do with work history, but strictly with financial need.


What Is SSDI?

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits." (To learn more, see our article on SSDI and work credits.) After receiving SSDI for two years, a disabled person will become eligible for Medicare.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html


SSI provides disability benefits for low-income disabled people who don't qualify for Social Security. SSI, or Supplemental Security Income, is a needs-based program that provides a monthly check to persons who are blind, elderly, or have a disability. For disabled people who have never worked, or those who haven't worked enough in the recent years to qualify for SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), SSI may be the only program available to them.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/question18.html

[thucythucy]

77. Thank you.

I stand corrected, as my source was obviously outdated.

And thanks for the link, it's sure to come in handy as this issue moves forward.

[ND-Dem]

78. thanks for thanking me and sorry to be testy. i see so much BS on this, it's sometimes hard to

tell who's just confused and who's deliberately confusing spreading misinformation.

[thucythucy]

79. I understand, and no need to apologize.

I didn't perceive you as "testy" at all, and can see from your other posts on this thread that you're fighting the good fight.

For which I thank you again. It can be tough if you think you're all alone in this, and historically, people with disabilities have had few allies they could really count on. So every voice raised in our defense, even the "testy ones" is a cause for me to celebrate.

Come to think of it, sometimes we especially need the "testy" ones.

Best wishes.

[ND-Dem]

80. best to you too and to all of us. we're gonna need all the luck we can get.

[Packerowner740]

98. Children lose their benefits when they turn 18

Or at the end of the school year if they are still in high school. That was when my sons benefits stopped.

[ND-Dem]

73. SSDI recipients MUST HAVE paid into the system. I don't know where purported democrats get

such misinformation.

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits." (To learn more, see our article on SSDI and work credits.) After receiving SSDI for two years, a disabled person will become eligible for Medicare.

Under SSDI, a disabled person's spouse and children dependents are eligible to receive partial dependent benefits, called auxiliary benefits. However, only adults over the age of 18 can receive the SSDI disability benefit.

http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html

[underpants]

32. Oh SSDI has been a target for a loooong time

They paint everyone as being lazy grifters using bad parenting as a way to get another paycheck out of YOUR pocket. They have been attacking SSDI since at least the early 90's.

[Thinkingabout]

24. The SSDI was funded into 2016. The fund is now going broke. It is funded from the SS fund.

In 1984 there was SS reforms, the max cap on wages was raised and the full retirement age was raised for those born after 1938 to 67. Life expectancy has risen since SS began in 1935. When the reforms happened in 1984 it would allow for funding from 2012 to about 2035, about 26 years. If the funding is going to continue past 2038 probably more reforms will have to occur. I know Congress has to vote for funding to be moved from SS to SSDI and with the election where the GOP is in control of Congress this might be a big problem. As they say elections has consequences and this just might be one we do not like. This is when non voters dropped the ball on the disabled. Also, there is some fraud which needs to be cleared up, people claiming to be blond and then going back to work while drawing benefits, even driving to work. One guy figured our how to pull off the dementia trick and was drawing a pension. It is wrong.

[dpibel]

30. It doesn't get lower than that

I hate it when people falsely claim to be blond.

Sorry. Just couldn't resist.

On a more serious note: Anecdotal claims of fraud establish nothing. I'd wager you could stack up every dollar fraudulently claimed by beneficiaries and it wouldn't amount to diddly compared to the sort of institution-side fraud represented by, for instance, Rick Scott and his company ripping of Medicare.

It's pretty hard to run any large institution involving large amounts of money (see, e.g., the defense budget) without having some fraud taking place.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Instituntional fraud is not funded out of the SS fund.

Why are comparing these two. It sounds like you are admitting there is fraud in SSDI and you compare it to institutional fraud so now it is right, no it is not right.

Yes there is fraud in Medicare also and when fraud is realized it should be reported. It should be brought out where ever there may be fraud, thieves are thieves, it does not know class boundaries.

[dpibel]

38. Orders of magnitude

Since I said that anywhere there's a big pot of money, there's likely to be some fraud, yes, I admit that there are undoubtedly some fraudulent SSDI claims.

My point is that trumpeting those from the rooftops while soft-pedaling much, much larger fraud is disingenuous. Saying that SSDI is broken because there are some fraudulent claims (and I'm not saying you're saying that--but opponents of SSDI are) simply doesn't fly.

Of course fraud should be rooted out, wherever it occurs. If Congress wanted to pursue fraud that really matters, there are a great many bankers awaiting their attention.

Yes, I'm aware that bankers have not (yet) looted FICA. That is beside the point.

[thucythucy]

46. "When fraud is realized it should be reported."

So why aren't you reporting all these cases of "fraud" you've been telling us about?

[Thinkingabout]

55. Right now the subject is SSDI, getting it funded and for those funds to go to the right people

And not the thieves. It us gong to be hard to get the Republicans to vote to even move funds. These are the election consequences, maybe more will soon become interested in voting.

[thucythucy]

60. No, YOU brought up the topic of SSDI fraud, and now you're being called on it

and are trying to weasel your way out.

Did you read the link in post 49? According to the GAO, less than one half of one percent of all SSDI recipients are getting inappropriate payments, and even that's an inflated number, as I explained in a post above.

Fraud is a miniscule part of the picture, but it's the bogus claim being used by Rand Paul and his ilk to undermine the system and smear people with disabilities, just like Reagan used to make up stories about "welfare queens" to smear poor people.

And you're repeating that smear here. And when called on it, you're now trying to duck out by claiming "that's not the subject."

It's people like you, repeating these bogus claims, that are giving Republicans the cover they need to go after people with disabilities.

Think about that, the next time you're tempted to cite something you "saw" on Judge Judy as a reason for this bogus, GOP manufactured "crisis."

[ND-Dem]

75. right now the subject is why YOU are catapulting the propaganda all over these boards.

[ND-Dem]

66. She's reporting it to you!!! That's what wingnuts do.

[pbmus]

36. Does it mean veterans disability is on the table to cut? ...nt

[PotatoChip]

113. Yes. It does mean that.

This is the R way (along with American flags and yellow ribbons) of thanking disabled veterans for fighting "to protect our freedoms".

"Now go back to work, Mr/Ms paralyzed veteran. You shouldn't have gotten in the way of that IED".

[ND-Dem]

65. Why here's Ms. Wingnut talking points again!!! Got any more links from wingnut sites to spread

around?

Got any more bullshit to peddle about how everyone is living so much longer than in 1935?

You're a busy little bee.

[Vinca]

19. We geezers always vote and they don't want to piss us off.

[sendero]

22. Exactly..

.... there is still a third rail and only the soon-to-be-out-of-office politician doesn't know about it.

They can probably slide by some crafty cuts like chained CPI, but direct cuts are not going to fly.

[dpibel]

26. Two reasons

1. As others on this thread have noted, it's been much more effectively demonized than old-age benefits. Thanks to credulous reporting from This American Life and 60 Minutes, there's a widespread belief that it's riddled with fraud. Even though that is demonstrably not the case.

2. More importantly, it fits the "going broke" scare tactics much better. Contrary to popular belief, SS old-age benefits are absolutely solid through about 2033. SSDI, however, will spend down its trust within the next few years, absent a reallocation of funds between the SSDI and SS old-age trust funds. This adjustment has been made as a matter of course in the past. But the people who want to destroy Social Security altogether see this as the thin edge of the wedge. They can truthfully say, "SSDI is going broke!" They just fail to point out that it's an easy fix, with solid precedent.

[doc03]

27. Everyone knows someone fraudulently getting a disability even though it

may only be 5% of them. They are an easy target, paint everyone on disability as freeloaders
just like they do people getting food stamps. Turn one group against the other, the same game
Republicans use very successfully every time. They did the same thing with labor unions for decades.
Turn one nationality against the other and label union officials communists. They have been doing it forever.
They are doing the same thing with the post office manufacturing a crisis.

[thucythucy]

48. If you know someone "fraudulently getting a disability"

Last edited Sun Jan 18, 2015, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

then you should report them.

Your "everyone" doesn't include me. I know lots of people with disabilities, and contrary to right wing BS they aren't crooks or parasites.

For every case of fraud there might be, I'd be willing to bet there are a hundred people who SHOULD be in the system but have been denied. Some people actually die of their disability before they get benefits, while trying to prove they even have one.

Edited to add: you say "five percent" but according to the GAO the actual figure is less than half of one percent. In other words, 20 times less than what you estimated. And even that small number is inflated, since the reporting requirements for SSDI are so stringent. If you make ANY money--say, babysitting your neighbor's kid for two hours a month--and don't report it, that's considered "fraud."

This whole narrative about SSDI and SSI being rife with fraud is just another right wing lie. And it's sad to see so many people have bought into it.

[dpibel]

50. Make that two

I don't know anyone who's fraudulently getting SSDI.

But Rand Paul agrees with this proposition: "The thing is, all of these programs, there’s always somebody who’s deserving. (But) everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system," Paul said.

[ND-Dem]

67. I don't know anyone fraudulently getting disability.

[jeff47]

96. Fraud rate is actually 0.4%. But good job catapulting the propaganda.

If you know someone is defrauding the government, perhaps you should report that crime instead of being an accessory.

[doc03]

122. I could give plenty of examples and as far as percentage

I don't know and didn't say I did. I said even if it's 5% it may be 1% or less but they must all live within a few miles of me if that's the case. My point was the Republicans are using them to turn one group again the other. That was the point. I know people that really deserved to get a disability that were put through hell because of others gaming the system. I know one guy that had a fall where he worked, he walked with a cane for months. He also claimed men in black shot holes in the aluminum siding on his house, put acid on his propane tank fittings and were following him everywhere. The day he got his first SSDI check he must have visited Rev. Peter Popoff and got healed. He now rides a Harley, got a new ski boat and now acts perfectly sane. I could give lots of examples and most people I know can. I know another that joked about the doctor taking in all his bullshit about him covering up his kids in the middle of the night to protect them from agent orange. He got a military disability for that.

It is not my job to turn them in if the people running the program are that damn stupid more power to them.

[jeff47]

123. Well, you can care about the people who need it

or you can be more concerned about.....something else you don't bother to mention.

If they're committing fraud, and you know it, you are committing a crime. Admitting that on a public message board is probably not wise. And if doing it to help other people won't motivate you, then do it to help save your own ass.

[doc03]

125. I can't believe you don't know one freeloader, you must

live in a different world than the rest of us. I bet I could ask ten people and every one of them could tell about one they know. But the vast majority
of people that are on a disability deserve it I am sure never said they didn't. But here on DU you can't speak truth if it doesn't fit the far left agenda. I am a
middle of the road Democrat not a flaming liberal.

[jeff47]

128. 0.4%. That's why I don't know one freeloader.

For everyone to know one, there would have to be way more than 0.4%.

"Everyone does it" is still not an excuse. Whether you're speeding or covering up for fraud.

[doc03]

126. I am scared, I bet any law enforcement officer knows some too. I will put them under citizens

arrest next time I hear one talking about people gaming the system.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. According to SS.gov one needs 40 work credits 20 of which earned in the last ten

yrs ending with the yr one becomes disabled. Sounds like contribution to me.

[LiberalElite]

37. It reminds me of this -

People can think Oh it's only the disabled THOSE LOSERS and let it go.

[Basic LA]

39. The salami strategy.

One slice of salami is not enough to fight over, so let them have it. Finally there's not enough salami left worth fighting for.

[Thinkingabout]

40. SSDI is different from SS. SSDI is supposed to be for those who are disabled, perhaps did not

Pay into FICA for forty quarters as required of those getting SS benefits or drawing family benefits. Some getting SSDI have never personally paid anything into FICA, but may get benefits because their parents paid into FICA. SSDI and SS is not a welfare program, it us funded by FICA taxes. How can it be fair to cut the benefits of SS along with SSDI, because these are benefits of those who paid the taxes and was matched by their employer. As on who now receives SS, I would not like to have the benefits cut along with SSDI, I paid to get the benefits.

[thucythucy]

62. You keep repeating this, and it's been pointed out to you several times you're just plain wrong.

Go to the SSA website and check on the requirements for SSDI. You have to have paid into the system to be eligible. Kids of people on SSDI get benefits, but only until they reach age 22. Then they lose those benefits, unless they themselves are disabled.

Is this something else you "learned" on Judge Judy?

Please stop spreading misinformation that furthers a right wing agenda.

[ND-Dem]

70. I'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed. she's all over these boards talking about all the

'massive fraud' at SSDI and pretending like wants to combat it so more people can get benefits. She linked a winger site to support her claims.

She's a freaking broken record devoted to catapulting the propaganda.

[ND-Dem]

69. BULLSHIT. You're full of wingnut bullshit. You don't even know what SSDI is, or are deliberately

confusing it with SSI.


The main difference between Social Security Disability (SSD, or SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is the fact that SSD is available to workers who have accumulated a sufficient number of work credits, while SSI disability benefits are available to low-income individuals who have either never worked or who haven't earned enough work credits to qualify for SSD.

Social Security Disability Insurance is funded through payroll taxes. SSDI recipients are considered "insured" because they have worked for a certain number of years and have made contributions to the Social Security trust fund in the form of FICA Social Security taxes. SSDI candidates must be younger than 65 and have earned a certain number of "work credits." (To learn more, see our article on SSDI and work credits.) After receiving SSDI for two years, a disabled person will become eligible for Medicare.

Under SSDI, a disabled person's spouse and children dependents are eligible to receive partial dependent benefits, called auxiliary benefits. However, only adults over the age of 18 can receive the SSDI disability benefit.


http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html


Quit spreading bullshit all over DU.

[merrily]

106. SSDI is part of OASDI, also known as SS. SSI, however, is a different program from SS

[Recursion]

119. Are you confusing SSDI and SSI? (nt)

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. 2 or 3 out of 100 are fraudulent, therefore lets stop all benefits and kill as many as we

can...says the teapartier


They are at war with the American people....

[thucythucy]

71. It's actually less than that.

According to the GAO (and the link is posted in this thread) the figure is 0.4 %, that is, less than one half of one percent, or something like 2 out of every 500. And even those aren't all what is generally considered "fraud." At least some of those are people who mess up the paperwork (and being on SSI or SSDI requires people to file A LOT of paperwork. If you screw up a form--or if the government screws up and overpays you one month--that's considered an "inappropriate payment"--or "fraud" according to Rand Paul.

Funny how the Pentagon losing tens of billions of dollars a year is just dandy with the GOP, but some totally blind person who makes a little money on the side baby sitting gets them all outraged at the horrific abuse of government largesse.

[ND-Dem]

87. The overpayment rate, which isn't even necessarily fraud, is 1.4%. That would be less than 2/100,

and not even necessarily fraudulent, could be administrative error. That's an admirable record.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

52. I keep seeing these Opening Posts on SSDI with no link to a news article...

What exactly are the Republicans planning?

[dpibel]

53. First day of Congress rule change

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/social-security-di-house-rules-change

[GeorgeGist]

57. Be patient.

You'll lose your pony soon enough.

[merrily]

107. Skipping the sarcasm emote can be

dangerouson DU.

I once posted about how elementary public school kids needed to get out of school and start creating jobs (on a thread about Wendy Davis fighting for public schools). I had actually considered adding the emote, then decided including the emote would be too much of an insult to the intelligence of DUers. I got a hide, with some jurors actually saying things like "next time, use the emote." So, they knew damned well i was not really a RWer who had been getting away with my "disguise" until then. The alert stalkers won.

[Prophet 451]

63. Easy target

Conservatives are bullies, they like to attack groups too small to fight back. The Tories here are doing teh same thing for teh same reason.

[ND-Dem]

64. divide and conquer. they don't expect retirees to protest cuts to disabled benefits. whittle

things away, bit by bit, is always their strategy.

the plan is to allow cuts to happen, not to cut -- because the ssdi account is low, and they changed the rules to forbid money being moved from other accounts within social security.

LET'S PROVE THEM WRONG. If we can't we deserve what we get.

[liberal_at_heart]

82. Divide and conquer is exactly what they are trying to do.

[ND-Dem]

88. Yes.

[herding cats]

99. This began with the spreading the fear of SSDI recipients committing fraud for years now.

Just like before they chopped "welfare" to the bones, which oddly many RW people still don't know has taken place, the propaganda war started long before the actual action.

The reality is less than 1% of the cases have shown signs of fraud, and SSDI benefits average just over $500 a month, or $17 a day.

So, now here we are at an ugly place in our history where we're treating our least able to earn like they're a problem, and sadly a lot of people are swallowing it hook line and sinker.

[merrily]

101. One generation against another, one recipient group against another.

Divide and conquer. "It's a story as old as Adam and Eve." They target seniors, the disabled AND the young and healthy. However, of late, the emphasis seems to be on targeting the disabled rather than seniors.

After all, it's easier for the plutocrats to pretend that most or all people who are 65 or older should have been responsible enough to put aside plenty from their salaries for their retirement, than it is to say the same about someone who was disabled at 29 (and may collect benefits many years more longer than someone who worked until conventional retirement age.)

From a distance, the fight between needy seniors and needy disabled doesn't look quite as ugly as some soul-less billionaire arguing against Old Age Surivivors and Disability Insurance benefits to a disabled person. But, that is indeed who is fueling the fight against OASDI, as well as the pitting one generation against another and one group of recipients against the other.

BTW, this gambit has extra bennies for the plutocrats. One, this gambit not only pits seniors against the disabled, but if it succeeds, will soon pit the disabled against seniors as well. Greedy, soul-less, plutocrats delight. Two, there are some very strong and healthy seniors, but, by definition, not so among the disabled. And the disabled don't have as strong a group as AARP behind them. So, the disabled are, overall, easier to pick off. Three, the seeming disparity in the contributions gives the soul-less argument a veneer of rationality and, even, justice, though only the thinnest of veneers. Still, enough for "plausible deniality" about the inevitable killer of human beings to make sure the rich don't have to contribute to the society that made them rich that all this stuff really is.

But make no mistake, disabled, seniors or young'uns, they are coming for all of us and have been doing that for decades.

So, next time you see anyone fighting OASDI, know that they are fighting the battles of Pete Peterson, the Koch brothers, et al., whether they are so doing knowingly or unwittingly, or for money or for free. Living wage, paid time off from work, safe working conditions, an individual mandate to, in part, help bail out health insurers and hospitals, jobs flying overseas low expectation workers getting visas, OASDI, welfare. They have their eyes on all of us and always have. But they are getting better and better at all of it.

Don't fall into their trap.

[fredamae]

114. It IS "their"

Foot in the door to go After All Soc Sec Recipients. ALL-$2.7 Trillion in "our" trust is what they're after BUT IF they can Convince those on Regular Retirement they're NOT the Target? They'll Win and We will have Opened the door for them!
That's the rationale behind targeting the "smallest victims" first-They figure they can Crack the Protective Shell surrounding the whole program and go for the kill once they're successful - with regular retirees Help.......

Just remember: The smaller the victim? The sicker the mind. So, naturally they start with the most vulnerable, weakest, most ill/broken in our communities. They, especially have No voice, no power-at all.......
They need Our support.....because they are virtually Helpless/not capable of fighting this all on their own And in supporting/protecting Their interests we Protect also our Own.

[jwirr]

117. Divide and conquer.

[madville]

118. SSDI is running out of reserve funds

Normally they take money from the OASDI SS trust funds like the rule allowed.

My guess is they are going to use this funding "crisis" as leverage to attach to something else they want.

[Yo_Mama]

124. The DI trust fund will be exhausted next year or early in '17.

Under current law, that means benefits will be cut to the amount that incoming receipts will pay.

When the OAS fund runs out, the same will happen. That's currently estimated to be 2033 or 2034, but CBO thought it would run out late in the 2020s when they ran the numbers.

DI benefits can be continued, but only by taking money from the OAS fund and thus causing benefit cuts for SS recipients earlier.

[napi21]

127. Smaller group, so they figure they have a shot at it.

Too many people are on regular SS, they know it's a dead issue before it gets proposed.