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.
This is about the best source I have found about SSDI. A good read, IMO, for seeing how the program works, dispelling some of the myths out there about it, and suggestions for keeping the program solvent.
Heritage is a conservative think tank. They are not FOX News; they tend not to speculate too wildly. But that isn't an unbiased source.
It was very well written and straight forward. I saw no bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Part of the problem is that a number of people especially in their fifties when they lost their jobs during the recession went the SS Disability route especially when their unemployment benefits ended.
Pretty strict rules. I'm not sure it is that easy. A doctor is key here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie
A number of those folks actually had disabilities but were able to work at some jobs and preferred to do so, but when they lost their jobs, they were unable to find new employers willing to hire them. So they went on SSDI, for which they qualified. In their shoes I would do the same.
Ditto
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora
I was impressed with the author's ability to simplify a complicated process until I saw a few glaring errors. After noting the errors I also realized that the author omitted facts that could undermine the organization's proposed remedies. Was it deliberate? I have no idea. Sometimes authors are careless or lazy.
My concern is that our legislators might rely exclusively on the information presented in the article because it "looks pretty unbiased".
OTOH, I gotta admit that the Heritage folks are good at what they do.
I agree too. All in all this did answer questions but still leaves the question on how to keep it funded
I was impressed with the author's ability to simplify a complicated process until I saw a few glaring errors. After noting the errors I also realized that the author omitted facts that could undermine the organization's proposed remedies. Was it deliberate? I have no idea. Sometimes authors are careless or lazy.
My concern is that our legislators might rely exclusively on the information presented in the article because it "looks pretty unbiased".
OTOH, I gotta admit that the Heritage folks are good at what they do.
I'll have to go see where those glaring errors are- not saying they aren't there, I just need to spend some more time reading the article. I know the Heritage folks have a conservative perspective on things, so perhaps errors/omissions in the context of what else is there might determine if they are deliberate or just ignorance. And checking other (maybe original) sources for comparison might shed some light on this as well. Although I must admit I appreciate the simplicity of this "primer", LOL. I tend to get crosseyed when I'm faced with the legalese doublespeak one finds in government documents, I'd say that was just me but it appears that our Congressional members must think so too as they don't seem to feel they need to read bills before they vote on them. But as hard as they are to read, those are the original sources that need to be read to see what's there.
I'll have to go see where those glaring errors are- not saying they aren't there, I just need to spend some more time reading the article. I know the Heritage folks have a conservative perspective on things, so perhaps errors/omissions in the context of what else is there might determine if they are deliberate or just ignorance.
Lenora is an atty with more than ordinary knowledge of the SSDI program, as she has worked with people applying for SSDI - i.e., she's probably a bit more wonky than the rest of us on that issue. So, her observations of errors/omissions might not be something the layman would know or could easily discern.
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.
Only Fox News does this, right? Guess msnbc, CNBC, cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, all give completely objective and honest news and political reports. Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
Wouldn't know Mike Lee if he was sitting next to me on a plane. But that'll never happen - I fly economy.
There is no SS trust fund. Senator Kennedy ended that back in the 60s or 70s when he got a bill passed transferring all of the $$$ to the general fund and replaced by IOUs by the federal government. In Washington it was considered one of the greatest accounting tricks of all time, funding the government's current obligations with a pile of money set aside for people's retirements. In the corporate world, it is known as 'raiding the pension fund.'
The SSDI crashed before the retirement side will because of fraud. Many ALJs (Administrative Law Judges) who rule on SSDI cases simply think of it is a way to funnel more money into their communities. Others are in bed with disability lawyers, whose fees are paid by the government anyway. Some, both. In West Virginia, an ALJ retired rather than face an investigation why he approved SSDI benefits for all but two applicants in his lifetime. In Puerto Rico, some pharma company closed a factory (they transferred its product to Ireland). Of the 331 or so employees who were put out of work, something like 320 of them applied for SSDI during their last weeks of work - and got it.
Those of us in Washington who saw the impending transfer of $$$ from the SS retirement side to the SSDI side knew that once it happens, SS Retirement will fail more quickly. Apparently it has happened in this politically soothing bill to make both Obama's and congress's next two years fiscally calm.
There is a great deal of accuracy in the previous post about the effect of the government's decision to honor gay marriage at the federal level. No one up on the Hill had any idea how much money it was going to cost the taxpayer in benefits. Programs across the board that pay benefits to families suddenly are faced with a redefinition of what constitutes a 'family.' And they are scrambling to cover the additional costs.
I am a retired supervisor of federal employees - a fairly unique kind of employee who are forcibly retired in their fifties. We don't get SS retirement until we reach 62, and under the federal retirement system in place since 1983, SS retirement makes up a third of our retirement.
I have consistently counselled my guys not to expect that there will be anything left by the time we reach that age.
Further proof that most of the politicians that are running things are corrupt (at best) and criminals at worst. I've given up on our 'system' of government and will not vote unless Trump or Christie is the Republican nominee. There's nobody else worth my time.
Further proof that most of the politicians that are running things are corrupt (at best) and criminals at worst. I've given up on our 'system' of government and will not vote unless Trump or Christie is the Republican nominee. There's nobody else worth my time.
Christie good choice clean as a whistle with no hint of ethic issues in his administration. The SS disability system was tanking and was that the choice to allow it to tank? What precedent is that setting for the bigger retirement fund down the road? Just food for thought.
<snip? What precedent is that setting for the bigger retirement fund down the road? Just food for thought.
There has been a concerted effort by certain Republicans to vilify the disabled and/or poor. It was and is beyond stupid for seniors to believe that what happens to the disabled will not happen to the retired. Even after the recently enacted statutory changes affecting those close to retirement, there are seniors who will believe that they are home free, completely oblivious to this "divide and conquer" strategy.
Medicare is by far the easiest target. Ryan's voucher proposal emphasizes that current Medicare beneficiaries will be able to keep their traditional Medicare plan but does not mention that the premium fees will explode without the younger recipients paying their share into the Traditional plan. You would think that after the most recent brouhaha regarding the Medicare premium increases that more seniors would be alert to the negative impact that a voucher system would have on the Traditional plan but I seriously doubt it.
I agree that both Medicare and Social Security need to be fixed. I just wish people weren't so stupid. It drives me crazy.
Wouldn't know Mike Lee if he was sitting next to me on a plane. But that'll never happen - I fly economy.
There is no SS trust fund. Senator Kennedy ended that back in the 60s or 70s when he got a bill passed transferring all of the $$$ to the general fund and replaced by IOUs by the federal government. In Washington it was considered one of the greatest accounting tricks of all time, funding the government's current obligations with a pile of money set aside for people's retirements. In the corporate world, it is known as 'raiding the pension fund.'
The SSDI crashed before the retirement side will because of fraud. Many ALJs (Administrative Law Judges) who rule on SSDI cases simply think of it is a way to funnel more money into their communities. Others are in bed with disability lawyers, whose fees are paid by the government anyway. Some, both. In West Virginia, an ALJ retired rather than face an investigation why he approved SSDI benefits for all but two applicants in his lifetime. In Puerto Rico, some pharma company closed a factory (they transferred its product to Ireland). Of the 331 or so employees who were put out of work, something like 320 of them applied for SSDI during their last weeks of work - and got it.
Those of us in Washington who saw the impending transfer of $$$ from the SS retirement side to the SSDI side knew that once it happens, SS Retirement will fail more quickly. Apparently it has happened in this politically soothing bill to make both Obama's and congress's next two years fiscally calm.
There is a great deal of accuracy in the previous post about the effect of the government's decision to honor gay marriage at the federal level. No one up on the Hill had any idea how much money it was going to cost the taxpayer in benefits. Programs across the board that pay benefits to families suddenly are faced with a redefinition of what constitutes a 'family.' And they are scrambling to cover the additional costs.
I am a retired supervisor of federal employees - a fairly unique kind of employee who are forcibly retired in their fifties. We don't get SS retirement until we reach 62, and under the federal retirement system in place since 1983, SS retirement makes up a third of our retirement.
I have consistently counselled my guys not to expect that there will be anything left by the time we reach that age.
did you forget to mention your FERS supplement you receive UNTIL you're 62??
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.
