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.
According to the sources I read (links to some of them below), this Boehner-Obama budget included a transfer of around $150 billion from the SS retirement fund into the SSDI fund. This is no doubt what Senator Lee was referring to.
The issue is that the disability fund does not have the respect with most folks that the retirement fund has. The guidelines for retirement benefits are aged based and for disability in many cases a less than truthful measurement. I think many of us know folks who have been less than truthful and manipulated to get on SS disability.
heh heh - I knew that....but...but....but..... Sen. Lee calls this normal shifting "STEALING."
Therefore, it must be so, right????
And, then Congress wonders why they have an 8% rating. Can't believe a word out of their mouths.....or twitter accounts. It's all propaganda.
Mike Lee is a shame and embarrassment to all self-respecting Utahns. I am from Utah and when people ask me what bothers me the most about living in my state, I'm likely to answer "Mike Lee".
I went to a campaign rally in 2010 for this clown mostly because I wanted to hear what he had to say. He got up in front of two hundred people and talked about how our Constitution has been ruined by amendments. He actually said that every amendment after No. 15 was a mistake. Now, keep in mind someone who says this is saying that he opposes direct election of U.S. Senators by the people (they used to be elected by state legislatures), the right of women to vote, the income tax, limiting the president to two terms in office, and allowing eighteen year old's to vote. This is reactionary thinking at its worst. This is typical of the Tea Party and what it stands for. They present this platform of lowering taxes and reducing government regulation. The part that they leave out is that if they had their way they would totally abolish programs like social security and medicare.
The truth of the matter is that Mike Lee doesn't really believe in social security at all. He would tell you, if pressed, that its unconstitutional and should be "left to the states" to decide. This kind of thinking is out-of-step with the vast majority of voters and so Lee is careful to keep his mouth shut. Lee isn't particularly well liked by even other republicans in Utah. Many have joined a movement called "Citizens Against Mike Lee". Our other senator, republican Orrin Hatch, has criticized Lee on a number of occasions.
The moral of all this: Take anything Mike Lee says with more than a grain of salt.
According to the sources I read (links to some of them below), this Boehner-Obama budget included a transfer of around $150 billion from the SS retirement fund into the SSDI fund. This is no doubt what Senator Lee was referring to...
Thanks so much for this info. This is exactly what I suspected had happened but I couldnt find any thing on the internet to verify it.
I have no gripe with SSDI needing funds, as long as someone heading up that group takes responsibility for ensuring that fraud is minimized.
I think it's probably safe to say that there's little, if any, fraud committed by Social Security recipients. Every so often I read about someone whose elderly parent died and no one notified SS -- he just kept cashing the checks, in some cases for years. But that's about the only way I can imagine someone cheating on SS.
SSDI, however, is another matter. I personally know five different people who have been getting SSDI payments but arent disabled at all. It's apparently very easy to find a doctor who, for the right amount of $$$, will declare someone disabled. I reported all five of those people but nothing was ever done. It's obvious that no one in the SSDI dept cares about fraud -- and that's why it's so massive. So it really irritates me that money is passed from SS to SSDI when so much of that money will be given to able-bodied people who have found a way to commit fraud.
Here's what I don't understand about the proposed changes: I turn 66 in a year, but don't plan to claim SS benefits until age 70. Meanwhile, my wife (same age as me) has been receiving SS benefits since age 62. My question: once I'm 66, can I claim spousal benefits—half of her SS—until I eventually claim my own SS? Or is that benefit going away?
Thanks for any enlightenment . . . complicated stuff.
My grandfather opposed social security in 1932 and many of his criticisms are coming true in my lifetime.
That's so funny - seeing as how it is now 83 years later. Sorta' like saying don't build that airplane or build that road, because eventually they will need repairs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
So are you saying it has worked well for over 80 years and if it hits a bump in 2032 it will have worked well for a century? Some might say that is impressive! So with much of life it is time to review and evolve on, as the world is very different from oh say almost a century ago!
In your famous words "Bada Bing"!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
Mike Lee is a shame and embarrassment to all self-respecting Utahns. I am from Utah and when people ask me what bothers me the most about living in my state, I'm likely to answer "Mike Lee".
I went to a campaign rally in 2010 for this clown mostly because I wanted to hear what he had to say. He got up in front of two hundred people and talked about how our Constitution has been ruined by amendments. He actually said that every amendment after No. 15 was a mistake. Now, keep in mind someone who says this is saying that he opposes direct election of U.S. Senators by the people (they used to be elected by state legislatures), the right of women to vote, the income tax, limiting the president to two terms in office, and allowing eighteen year old's to vote. This is reactionary thinking at its worst. This is typical of the Tea Party and what it stands for. They present this platform of lowering taxes and reducing government regulation. The part that they leave out is that if they had their way they would totally abolish programs like social security and medicare.
The truth of the matter is that Mike Lee doesn't really believe in social security at all. He would tell you, if pressed, that its unconstitutional and should be "left to the states" to decide. This kind of thinking is out-of-step with the vast majority of voters and so Lee is careful to keep his mouth shut. Lee isn't particularly well liked by even other republicans in Utah. Many have joined a movement called "Citizens Against Mike Lee". Our other senator, republican Orrin Hatch, has criticized Lee on a number of occasions.
The moral of all this: Take anything Mike Lee says with more than a grain of salt.
This is a very popular tactic exercised in great numbers by Republicans, and sometimes by Democrats (especially at election time) Fox News does the same thing where they take a situation and twist the sound bite to arouse the listener (or reader) and misinterpret what actually took place or what was said. Unfortunately, in most cases it it is effective, because more than 1/2 of the population accept what was said and do not dig deeper and the people who make these statement like the senator know this very well.
My take--and this is about file/suspend and restricted application--not the SSDI/SS issue
I think someone just realized that legalizing gay marriage conveyed millions more people who "could" claim spousal benefits but were never considered as claimants when the original policy was created decades ago or in 2000 when the file/suspend option really came into play but who "might" take advantage of that option going forward.
Those millions of unanticipated possible double-dipping claimants were a real threat to draining funds much sooner...but no one wants to mention that fact because it sounds anti-gay...
So cutting the file/suspend and restricted filing will prevent that option after 180 days and theoretically I guess contain the amount of damage that might be possible.
If all future applications force claimants to file for ANY benefits, then everyone has to pull from His/her own earnings record first and supplement from the spouse's earnings...
Since males are usually higher earners than females, I guess the powers that be anticipate much less money to supplement from the spousal benefit side since that capped at 50% of the the partner's own SS amount--likely comes out to 0 added to the claimant's own SS.
Considering the number of gay partnerships compared to straight, especially considering (I hope they are smarter) they will marry in lesser proportions - this will not be a significant number. Sure, more maybe but not enough to bring this about.
No - this was to stop the middle class from double dipping while allowing big biz and the rich to double dip in other areas (outside SS). As soon as the middle class gets too smart and uppity, gotta shut it down.
Mike Lee is a shame and embarrassment to all self-respecting Utahns. I am from Utah and when people ask me what bothers me the most about living in my state, I'm likely to answer "Mike Lee".
I went to a campaign rally in 2010 for this clown mostly because I wanted to hear what he had to say. He got up in front of two hundred people and talked about how our Constitution has been ruined by amendments. He actually said that every amendment after No. 15 was a mistake. Now, keep in mind someone who says this is saying that he opposes direct election of U.S. Senators by the people (they used to be elected by state legislatures), the right of women to vote, the income tax, limiting the president to two terms in office, and allowing eighteen year old's to vote. This is reactionary thinking at its worst. This is typical of the Tea Party and what it stands for. They present this platform of lowering taxes and reducing government regulation. The part that they leave out is that if they had their way they would totally abolish programs like social security and medicare.
The truth of the matter is that Mike Lee doesn't really believe in social security at all. He would tell you, if pressed, that its unconstitutional and should be "left to the states" to decide. This kind of thinking is out-of-step with the vast majority of voters and so Lee is careful to keep his mouth shut. Lee isn't particularly well liked by even other republicans in Utah. Many have joined a movement called "Citizens Against Mike Lee". Our other senator, republican Orrin Hatch, has criticized Lee on a number of occasions.
The moral of all this: Take anything Mike Lee says with more than a grain of salt.
I agree with much of what you say. Most of the current bunch of senators and congressmen (gender not specific) have been talking out of both sides of their face. Both parties have us bamboozled and keep saying one thing while doing another. In this case though he was on the right side of that vote, even inadvertently.
Here's what I don't understand about the proposed changes: I turn 66 in a year, but don't plan to claim SS benefits until age 70. Meanwhile, my wife (same age as me) has been receiving SS benefits since age 62. My question: once I'm 66, can I claim spousal benefits—half of her SS—until I eventually claim my own SS? Or is that benefit going away?
That benefit is going away for those who won't turn 62 until next year. They won't have the option, even at FRA, to restrict their application to spousal.
But since you're currently over 62, you'll still be able to file a restricted application for spousal at your FRA of 66, and let your own benefit continue to accumulate delayed credits - unless the regs are changed again within the next year. Unlikely since this bill covers through March 2017.
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.
they are smarter) they will marry in lesser proportions - this will not be a significant number. Sure, more maybe but not enough to bring this about. 
