Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It can take three to five months for the state agency to decide if your child is disabled. However, for some medical conditions, we make SSI payments right away and for up to six months while the state agency decides if your child is disabled.
Following are some conditions that may qualify:
HIV infection;
Total blindness;
Total deafness;
Cerebral palsy;
Down syndrome;
Muscular dystrophy;
Severe mental retardation (child age 7 or older); and
Birth weight below 2 pounds, 10 ounces.
If your child has one of the qualifying conditions, he or she will get SSI payments right away. However, the state agency may finally decide that your child’s disability is not severe enough for SSI. If that happens, you will not have to pay back the SSI payments that your child got. Social Security Pubilications
No, leeching off of society is what the stay at home parent does when they receive social security and have not acquired the necessary work credits. The difference is that the SAHP is able bodied and able mentally. And when you are looking at this:
It is a problem. End entitlement SS for stay at home parents.YAY!!!!!
Stay at home parents are a problem, and we must strive to rub itout in our life time.
Meanwhile, our tax dollars need to go to educate, feed and clothe illegal aliens in our country, subsidize 0bama's many green energy projects, and fund all the millions of dollars in foreign aid, for important matters like birth control, drilling for oil, renovating mosques and teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex. gotcha.
And pray tell who cares for a disabled child when these "parasites" of parents have to find employment outside of the home?
And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that this poster is "pro-life". Don't abort that down syndrome, or autistic fetus, but we'll be damned if you'll get a dime from us to care for their upbringing.
If you are referring to the coworker I know, his son was born premature; I think he was 7 1/2 months or so.
The numbers don't lie. Tax revenue from the beginning to end of the Bush 43 Administration was relatively flat. However, federal expenditures rose by 88%. The tax cuts didn't spur economic growth at the same rate that occurred during the Clinton Administration. The economic downturn also killed tax revenue at the tail end of the Bush 43 Administration in 2007 total federal tax revenue as 2.568 trillion dollars in 2009 it was 1.911 trillion dollars. The combination of an economic downturn with increases in federal spending have exploded the federal deficit.
Looks like revenue went up to me.
Below is total US revenue:
The Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003
Looks like revenue from income taxes went up also, see below for revenue from taxes:
Then of course the chart dems don't want to see, the deficit:
No, leeching off of society is what the stay at home parent does when they receive social security and have not acquired the necessary work credits. The difference is that the SAHP is able bodied and able mentally. And when you are looking at this:
It is a problem. End entitlement SS for stay at home parents.YAY!!!!!
What the heck are you talking about? The government doesn't give SS to stay at home parents just for being a SAHP. I know plenty of stay at home parents and NONE of them receive SS. I surely never got SS when I was raising my kids and not working.
Shows how much you know, Alexus. Tax cuts do not have to be "paid for". The money does not belong to the government. It belongs to those who earned it.
Under Bush, with his tax cuts, Federal Revenue increased. It did the same under Reagan, and under JFK.
Under Obama, Federal Revenue has declined.
This phenomenon, which you cannot seem to understand (it's real simple, really) has been proven time and time again. Why don't you try to find out why this is so, instead of simply accepting the liberal lies? You might learn something.
The numbers don't lie. Tax revenue from the beginning to end of the Bush 43 Administration was relatively flat. However, federal expenditures rose by 88%. The tax cuts didn't spur economic growth at the same rate that occurred during the Clinton Administration. The economic downturn also killed tax revenue at the tail end of the Bush 43 Administration in 2007 total federal tax revenue as 2.568 trillion dollars in 2009 it was 1.911 trillion dollars. The combination of an economic downturn with increases in federal spending have exploded the federal deficit.
The average for Clinton in all of his years was $369,625,00.00. The average for Bush was $530,000,000.00.
From:
Quote:
Table 4 - Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980-2008 ($ Billions) Top 5%
The average for the total was $707,125,000 for the Clinton years while the average for the Bush years was $921,500,000. The highest total was in 2000 with $981,000,000 for Clinton and the highest for Bush was in 2007 with $1,116,000,000. Again from Table 4. And in
Quote:
Table 6 - Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
The tax cuts have nothing to do with spending and smaller government. They are set to expire at the end of the year as implemented by bush. Obama wants to extend them to 98% of americans, the republicans everyone. The top 2% getting this break is the #2 reason leading to the economic collapse only next to the wars. It was a complete failure and no reason to keep extending failed policies.
Ok Alexus,........class is in session AGAIN!...........Taxes are a source of "Revenue" to the Federal Government, hence the name "Internal Revenue Service". Revenue, "income", is in the accounts receivable column.......you are "receiving" the income........it is not a cost. Any thing that needs to be payed for is in the payables column it has a "cost" associated with it. When was the last time you went to your boss and said......."How am going to pay for that raise I didnt get"? Pretty silly isnt ? Lack of taxes is not a cost, that needs to be paid for.......Spending needs to be paid for! So if you are concerned about paying for things, that is where you should focus your attention, on the spending. If you are under the impression , that Republicans want to cut Taxes, you are mistaken.......Democrats want to increase Taxes to pay for their increased spending. Again when was the last time you went to your employer and said...." I require a raise because I just bought a house and car I could not afford" ? Hope this helps.
You'd probably have to go back to Calvin Cooliidge to find a Republican President that controlled government spending.
The history doesn't back up the rhetoric.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
= democrat )
