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.
In the February thread with the very similar title, it said that it was rising for 196 straight months. Let's see, Obama has been in office for far less than that.
Another failed thread.
If we are recovering, like Obama said, then why are things getting worse during the "recovery"?
Since Obama declared a recovery:
-More people on Social Security Disability
-An increasing rate of poverty to the highest rate in over 50 years
-An increasing rate of people on Food Stamps to its highest overall number ever
-A decreasing ratio of people with Full Time Equivalent Jobs (you know the jobs with benefits), in fact we currently have 5 straight months of declining full time job ratios.
-Less hours worked by Americans.
-Lowest Employment Rates since 1979.
-Lowest Employment Rates of 25 to 54 year olds (what the gov. calls prime working age) since 1984
-Less Average Household income.
-121% of the income gains belong to the top 1%. That means the 99% have lost income.
-QE4 to keep the economy afloat creating $3,000,000,000.00 a day to buy debt with and artificially keep the interest payments on the national debt low...even Obama and Krugman admit that this can't continue consistently for the long term.
All of these numbers have gotten worse, since Obama declared the "Recovery" has begun...it seems like you have to shut off your brain to be an Obama supporter, because they keep spouting off the word "recovery" when things are getting worse for the average American.
Only an idiot would be surprised when the population grows that the number of people on disability grow as well.
The reason for the increase is the Obama regime is ALLOWING people who are laid off and too young to qualify for SS to jump on this bandwagon to keep the unemployment rate artificially low. These deadbeats should go on welfare or move to a state that has work.
If you are 55 and get laid off, it is hard to find another job that will pay you what you need to cover your expenses.
Obama also couldn't justify rewarding all those who have broken our laws and are illegally with a very large amnesty -- a size never before seen if Americans actually wanted jobs. Illegals working in farm work or as domestic servants once amnestied will not longer have to do so, they can either take better jobs or get on disability also.
If Americans weren't being paid to lay around and do nothing the rest of their lives, more would want some kind of control on immigration. They'd want jobs.
The reason for the increase is the Obama regime is ALLOWING people who are laid off and too young to qualify for SS to jump on this bandwagon to keep the unemployment rate artificially low. These deadbeats should go on welfare or move to a state that has work.
If you are 55 and get laid off, it is hard to find another job that will pay you what you need to cover your expenses.
Absolutely untrue, as one who works for ODAR can attest.
The definition of disability has not changed in years. President Obama (and all presidents before him) have absolutely no affect on the disability process (save perhaps in funding). The men and women who serve as the Administrative Law Judges are proud of their judicial independence (they are not 'real' Federal judges, but they do serve for life if they desire). I have never heard of any missive coming from any presidential administration instructing judges to 'allow' more cases. It does not happen.
I have worked for ODAR since 1988, and I can tell you that the rise in filings is due, in part, due to the aging population having heart attacks, back pain, etc. True, we get many filing who were laid off and can't find another job, and so they file for disability. The reason the cases get to the Federal level is because the State DDS have turned down the applications. However, an ALJ has no qualms about turning down the application by a 55+ year old (usually because they do not have a 'severe' impairment, or they have a severe impairment and can perform their past relevant work). I just wrote a case in which a 62 year old woman (laid off) was denied because she simply did not have anything wrong with her.
You don't need a severe impairment to get on disability. You can have two perfectly good arms and two perfectly good legs, and IQ over 65 and still collecct your free money.
The problem with our government and our social workers is that they take the approach that working for a livng is bad and cruel. Work is actually therapuetic, it's good for someone.
Disability numbers are not skyrocketing because more people have actually become severely disabled. In fact with modern medicine, there should be far less cases but it's the reverse.
You don't need a severe impairment to get on disability. You can have two perfectly good arms and two perfectly good legs, and IQ over 65 and still collecct your free money.
The problem with our government and our social workers is that they take the approach that working for a livng is bad and cruel. Work is actually therapuetic, it's good for someone.
Disability numbers are not skyrocketing because more people have actually become severely disabled. In fact with modern medicine, there should be far less cases but it's the reverse.
What's very odd -- the cases of disability are skyrocketing in numbers -- in spite of workplace disability laws that make it so the workplace must accomodate disabled employees. In the past you had to actually be disabled to collect these checks. You had to be missing legs or something quite major.
The reason for the increase is the Obama regime is ALLOWING people who are laid off and too young to qualify for SS to jump on this bandwagon to keep the unemployment rate artificially low. These deadbeats should go on welfare or move to a state that has work.
If you are 55 and get laid off, it is hard to find another job that will pay you what you need to cover your expenses.
Do you have any evidence that Mr. Obama is "allowing" people who are laid off and too young to qualify for SSA? Remember, Mr. Obama doesn't have any control over a company that lays off workers. Moreover, the rules that SSA uses aren't decided by the President.
Anyone want to take a crack at answering my question? How has Obama made disability benefits easier to get?
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.
