If you wanted to "save" money, you could make a much bigger dent by cutting survivors and dependents, which could easily be characterized as "welfare." However, it appears to be less politcally damaging to go after the disabled by just crying "fraud, fraud, fraud." Nevermind that for every case of real fraud there are probably 100 that are unfairly denied (check out the other graph).
How is a system based on taxes paid into Social Security and Medicare , that has included with the benefits available Survivor and Auxiliary payments, considered welfare?
When trying to cut Social Security, they (usually right-wingers) always go after the most vulnerable.
Retired workers and survivors/dependents are vulnerable but not nearly as vulnerable than disabled people. Also retired workers vote because older people have nothing better to do than complain. They will NEVER (I repeat) NEVER attack retired workers unless it is the last resort. This includes both Dems and Reps.
However, survivors/dependents probably will not be attacked because they are touchy feely. Meaning Dems/Reps don't want to go after the living kin of some deceased worker.
So that leaves the disabled. They are (if legitimately disabled) in more dire need easily than anybody who could get Social Security.
But heartless people like House Speaker Paul Ryan for some reason can't stand disabled people. This brainiac wanted to cut SSI entirely. Why? Only about 3 million people are on SSI while this chart shows more are on SSD and retired workers. But Ryan is like, oh, let's go after the poor and disabled because a. They don't vote b. Most are all crack addicts, lazy, non-white, faking, blah, blah. How this guy Ryan becomes a major politician is beyond my comprehension.
I am not opposed to cutting Social Security. I always wonder why when seriously talking about cuts into Social Security the disabled are first to go. As this chart shows, this is only 15 percent of the budget. Go after the other 85 percent first right?
Disability should be a separate and distinct program from Social Security. To tie the two together is a farce. Retirement has been paid for by workers. Some disability is paid for by workers, some disability is out and out welfare and wealth redistribution, no if ands or buts. Retired citizens that have paid in deserve the return on their money. Welfare programs were taken from the individual States so big government would have more money to control and play with. I am tired of people saying retirement benefits are an entitlement. They are not.
If you really want to cut disability, force the workers comp. insurance and long term disability insurance to pay the injured who are supposed to be "covered" instead of putting them on SSDI! This would also decrease the backlogs without additional funding!
A4:30 and A5:40 You are wrong, social security is not a "financial drain" nor "welfare" -- social security is an insurance set up by actuarial principles. If I pay my car insurance and have an accident, I expect the insurance company to pay what it contractually agreed to pay. It doesn't matter if I paid years of premiums, or just a couple, because the risk is spread among the entire group which is insured by that company. The federal government is administering social security, at far less cost than private insurance administration, but the taxpayers who paid the taxes have a contract to get disability/retirement if certain requirements are met. It's not welfare, and folks who have been paying FICA/OASDI/Medicare taxes all their lives have contributed.
11:06, which part of this did you not understand? "Retired citizens that have paid in deserve the return on their money. Welfare programs were taken from the individual States so big government would have more money to control and play with. I am tired of people saying retirement benefits are an entitlement. They are not." SSI, disability for those that have not paid into the system is welfare.. SSD is not welfare, it is insurance. How can someone that has never worked and never would, be disabled? Disabled from what? Laziness??
3:49 PM Seriously? Some are disabled from birth. Others become disabled before they are old enough to work! Others become disabled soon after or develop medical conditions that they will become disabled from 10, 20 even 30 years later (such as MS, MD, etc.).
And it is considered welfare if they haven't paid into it. Call it that and separate it or give it back to the States. There are a lot of 50 year old women that suddenly apply for SSI when their last child turns 18 and they no longer receive welfare from their children. There is a whole industry out there, spreading entitlements far and wide. Any country that has the welfare system our country does cannot last long. Who is going to support the welfare once the Boomers are gone? They just turned 66 in 2012, now it is about 10,000 a day. Middle class be gone.
8:50 AM If your concern is the budget, then reducing medical costs is the easiest way to do it. However, it would require medical malpractice reform. Too much time and money is spent on lawyers and accountants due to overly complex laws that nobody could completely comply with. We need common sense tort reform that encourages people and corporations to do the right thing, or at least make it in their interest to do the right thing. Yes, you will always have scam artists and people who go out of their way to be offended. What we must not do is encourage bad behavior, by rewarding it. You would eliminate many lawsuits by making the loser pay. As for welfare, you will have fewer babies born out of wedlock if you stop rewarding it while discouraging marriage. It is interesting that much of these issues could be summed up as a lack of morality in our culture, which is encouraged by the media, the government and the Democratic Party. As John Adams said, "...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
12 comments:
If you wanted to "save" money, you could make a much bigger dent by cutting survivors and dependents, which could easily be characterized as "welfare." However, it appears to be less politcally damaging to go after the disabled by just crying "fraud, fraud, fraud." Nevermind that for every case of real fraud there are probably 100 that are unfairly denied (check out the other graph).
I agree, Tim.
How is a system based on taxes paid into Social Security and Medicare , that has included with the benefits available Survivor and Auxiliary payments, considered welfare?
When trying to cut Social Security, they (usually right-wingers) always go after the most vulnerable.
Retired workers and survivors/dependents are vulnerable but not nearly as vulnerable than disabled people. Also retired workers vote because older people have nothing better to do than complain. They will NEVER (I repeat) NEVER attack retired workers unless it is the last resort. This includes both Dems and Reps.
However, survivors/dependents probably will not be attacked because they are touchy feely. Meaning Dems/Reps don't want to go after the living kin of some deceased worker.
So that leaves the disabled. They are (if legitimately disabled) in more dire need easily than anybody who could get Social Security.
But heartless people like House Speaker Paul Ryan for some reason can't stand disabled people. This brainiac wanted to cut SSI entirely. Why? Only about 3 million people are on SSI while this chart shows more are on SSD and retired workers. But Ryan is like, oh, let's go after the poor and disabled because a. They don't vote b. Most are all crack addicts, lazy, non-white, faking, blah, blah. How this guy Ryan becomes a major politician is beyond my comprehension.
I am not opposed to cutting Social Security. I always wonder why when seriously talking about cuts into Social Security the disabled are first to go. As this chart shows, this is only 15 percent of the budget. Go after the other 85 percent first right?
Disability should be a separate and distinct program from Social Security. To tie the two together is a farce. Retirement has been paid for by workers. Some disability is paid for by workers, some disability is out and out welfare and wealth redistribution, no if ands or buts. Retired citizens that have paid in deserve the return on their money. Welfare programs were taken from the individual States so big government would have more money to control and play with. I am tired of people saying retirement benefits are an entitlement. They are not.
Agree. I am all for privatizing the disability wing of Social Security. What irks me is those trying to cut SS go after the disabled first.
In reality, the biggest financial drain on the government is helping older retired people for 1. Social Security 2. Medicare. Why not cut them first?
If you really want to cut disability, force the workers comp. insurance and long term disability insurance to pay the injured who are supposed to be "covered" instead of putting them on SSDI! This would also decrease the backlogs without additional funding!
A4:30 and A5:40 You are wrong, social security is not a "financial drain" nor "welfare" -- social security is an insurance set up by actuarial principles. If I pay my car insurance and have an accident, I expect the insurance company to pay what it contractually agreed to pay. It doesn't matter if I paid years of premiums, or just a couple, because the risk is spread among the entire group which is insured by that company. The federal government is administering social security, at far less cost than private insurance administration, but the taxpayers who paid the taxes have a contract to get disability/retirement if certain requirements are met. It's not welfare, and folks who have been paying FICA/OASDI/Medicare taxes all their lives have contributed.
11:06, which part of this did you not understand? "Retired citizens that have paid in deserve the return on their money. Welfare programs were taken from the individual States so big government would have more money to control and play with. I am tired of people saying retirement benefits are an entitlement. They are not." SSI, disability for those that have not paid into the system is welfare.. SSD is not welfare, it is insurance. How can someone that has never worked and never would, be disabled? Disabled from what? Laziness??
3:49 PM Seriously? Some are disabled from birth. Others become disabled before they are old enough to work! Others become disabled soon after or develop medical conditions that they will become disabled from 10, 20 even 30 years later (such as MS, MD, etc.).
And it is considered welfare if they haven't paid into it. Call it that and separate it or give it back to the States. There are a lot of 50 year old women that suddenly apply for SSI when their last child turns 18 and they no longer receive welfare from their children. There is a whole industry out there, spreading entitlements far and wide. Any country that has the welfare system our country does cannot last long. Who is going to support the welfare once the Boomers are gone? They just turned 66 in 2012, now it is about 10,000 a day. Middle class be gone.
8:50 AM If your concern is the budget, then reducing medical costs is the easiest way to do it. However, it would require medical malpractice reform. Too much time and money is spent on lawyers and accountants due to overly complex laws that nobody could completely comply with. We need common sense tort reform that encourages people and corporations to do the right thing, or at least make it in their interest to do the right thing. Yes, you will always have scam artists and people who go out of their way to be offended. What we must not do is encourage bad behavior, by rewarding it. You would eliminate many lawsuits by making the loser pay. As for welfare, you will have fewer babies born out of wedlock if you stop rewarding it while discouraging marriage. It is interesting that much of these issues could be summed up as a lack of morality in our culture, which is encouraged by the media, the government and the Democratic Party. As John Adams said, "...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Post a Comment