Disabled Recipients of Social Security Fund Face Hefty Benefits Cut

[Omaha Steve]

This has been posted before, but a reminder can't hurt. I was going to post this as a reply in the current 401K post in GD. I decided to make it an OP on it's own.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/disabled-recipients-social-security-fund-face-hefty-benefits-cut-n127981

June 22

BY MARTHA C. WHITE

Congressional gridlock is threatening the already thin lifeline of Social Security benefits that nearly 9 million disabled American workers rely on to feed, clothe and shelter their families.

Known as SSDI, the trust fund is one of two administered by the Social Security Administration (the other is for senior citizens), and its reserves will run dry in late 2016, if lawmakers don’t act sooner to shore them up. But the timing is poor; it falls in an election year and experts say it could become a target for political infighting as Americans gear up to go to the polls.

“I think it’ll probably come down to the wire,” said Mark Duggan, a professor of business economics and public policy at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

And that’s what worries people like Erica Choy. The 45-year-old San Francisco resident is struggling to raise the youngest four of her five kids on about $2,100 a month, a combination of SSDI and SSI — supplemental security insurance. “It’s a constant struggle for us,” she said.

FULL story at link.

[antigop]

1. this is bullshit...if we can bail out the banks, we can take care of the disabled. nt

[Thinkingabout]

30. The goverment made money on the bank bailout, it was a win win situation for the citizens

and the government. There would have been many more people struggling unless the banks was bailed out.

[daleanime]

35. Is that true....

of that lack of prosecution, off-shored tax profits, gutted regulations, excessive CEO incomes, etc, etc....


Are those win win situations also?

[Thinkingabout]

44. I did not address the lack of prosecution,off-shored tax profits, gutted regulations, excessive

CEO incomes, etc, etc.....

[daleanime]

48. We both agree....

you skipped right over them.

[madokie]

84. I have a rather long post I'm working on

Would you like for me to message it to you for your perusal before I post it or would it be ok if I just go ahead and take the bold step on my on?

The person made a point but not enough of a point to suit you so you want to give them a hard time about it

[daleanime]

93. It's not that I'm missing the one point, I get that....

but when you take one point and ignore the rest, you're not making a case. You're making an excuse.




And f it's not too much trouble, I wouldn't mind see your OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Only because of trillions in back-door bailouts

"quantitative easing" and other shenanigans that power @#$&ed the 99%.

Trillions.

[Thinkingabout]

46. You know the government came out well on the bank bailouts and are smart enough understand

how the bail outs worked.

[daleanime]

47. And in whose favor.....

[Thinkingabout]

59. If the government made money on this deal whose favor would you think it would be?

[CreekDog]

86. It would hurt the country if millions more became homeless

And or went hungry.

Is that so hard to figure out?

[Thinkingabout]

88. It is more than figuring out who purchased homes which was out of their price range from the start.

Yes they perhaps was victims of overzealous realtors and mortgage lenders. I have had struggles myself but try to accept reality. There is affordable housing available, it may not be an upscale area but still available.

[daleanime]

94. I find myself unable to make....

civil response.

[brentspeak]

50. It was a win for the banks

and a loss for everyone else.

Not a single American who lost their job, home, or retirement fund as a result of the Wall Street-created financial "meltdown" saw a penny of the money returned to the government. Further, because bankers were rewarded with taxpayer money instead of being jailed, another generation of Americans down the line will lose everything they might have once Wall Street crashes the economy again.

Finally, the government didn't actually "make money" on the bailout; there are a couple of trillion dollars in backdoor bailouts which the banks will never attempt to repay.

Your post is propaganda.

[Thinkingabout]

60. Propaganda? That would be by the denial of how much money went out and how much returned.

What do you think a win win situation is? The banks won, the tax payers got back more money than went out, this would be a win win situation.

[Scuba]

65. Win-win-lose

The banks won, the government made a little money (which was spent on the MIC) and the homeowners lost.

[Enthusiast]

75. +1

[Enthusiast]

74. -1

[Enthusiast]

73. +1

[1handclapn]

2. screw the poor..

there are Rich people that need that tax free money.

actually... the richest 1% holds 43% of the nations financial wealth, the richest 10% holds 72%, richest 20% hold 95.4% of the Financial wealth in the USA, poorest 80% hold 4.6% of financial wealth and the poorest 50% hold 2% to 2.5% SO THERE IS NO MIDDLE CLASS.!! QUIT USING THAT TERM.!! THERE IS ONLY THE HAVE IT ALL'S AND THE UNDER CLASS.
it is a mind control trick to make you think you aren't being SCREWED every second of your life.!! by the rich who are so taped out they cant afford to PAY TAXES. the reason there is a recession is the lack of money in circulation.. there are recessions because the rich loot and tie up all the cash in their mentally ill OCD cleptocratic plutocratic quest to acquire more needless wealth and power ..at the expense of the underclass, this is a national security threat. THE MENTALLY ILL AND PSYCHOPATHS RUN THIS COUNTRY NOW.

read Jeff Sharlet's The Family..

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jeff+sharlet%27s+the+family

[customerserviceguy]

4. In addition to owning all that money

they also own both houses of Congress, any GOP candidate likely to win their nomination, and some folks even believe that to be true of our eventual inevitable nominee.

I don't see this coming out well no matter what is done or not done.

[NewDeal_Dem]

12. +100

the game was up when tons of money were created out of thin air to give to the bankers.

plus, US GNP, in real inflation-adjusted terms, is higher than ever, giving the lie to the idea that the US is so broke it can't take care of its people.

[golfguru]

13. but..but...Obama is a wealth redistributionist,,,

That is what the republicans accuse him of all the time.
If 1% still own 43% of wealth after 6 years, that blows
that meme to smithereens.

[Beartracks]

15. Silly! The ONLY reason Obama's socialist-marxist-nazi-commie dreams haven't come to pass...

... is because Congressional Republicans STOOD UP to the President by shrewdly DOING NOTHING for six whole years, thereby achieving THEIR DREAM of making sure Obama did not ENSLAVE US ALL!!!!11!one!

==================

[golfguru]

54. The republicans are clueless.

Obama out maneuvered them on undocumented immigrants.
He also just signed off on dilution of Dodd-Frank restrictions on risky plays by banks. That proves he is no income redistributionist.

[Beartracks]

92. Pfft! Facts, nothing more!!

============

[Enthusiast]

76. Meme? Those accusations were a well rehearsed smokescreen.

And it worked to perfection because millions still believe it.

[CountAllVotes]

34. SSDI is not income contingent

It is based on how long and how much you paid into it. You must have paid into it for 10 full years to collect any benefits from it. If you have not done so, you may end up on SSI (supplemental security income) which is in a large part administered by the State that you live in (i.e. SSI recipients get more in the State of Calif. than in Texas) and IS income contingent.

There are too damn many people out there that retire and draw a full pension and immediately file for SSDI when they are out claiming to be permanently disabled. Many people get SSDI this way.

I receive a pension of $80.00/month at present and what I get from SSDI is less than many receive on SSI.

Should people like myself just go ahead an suicide themselves already? I was planning to do so anyway given the progressive disease I am TRYING to live with!

Merry Xmas. Yeah right. Thanks for posting this GREAT news on Xmas day!

[dotymed]

70. Scoot over CountAll...

SSDI is income based. However, the favorite trick of SS is to drag out the approval process (my Dr.'s wrote letters for years, my cardiologist was pissed at SS!) by having you be assessed by their contracted "Dr.'s" (I saw many, non-English speaking "Dr.'s" who said I was fine) so that your average yearly income shrinks dramatically. It seems (it has been a while) that your last 5 years of income is weighed more heavily, SS took 6 years to make a decision and only 2 of those were viewed retroactively. The amount on my yearly IRS report (if you were to get SS then) was cut in half by the time I was approved as disabled. I tried but was unable to earn during that time.
If you are a member of the great unwashed and you survive their vetting process, your SS income will have shrunken dramatically.
"They" prefer we die. If we are not agreeable enough to do that, they will guarantee that you live in poverty.
My Union never hesitated with my disability pension or continued insurance coverage or I would have died.
There is no justice in the process or outcome (in my case anyway) and now the added stress of Union pensions being done away with is driving me to the edge.
I was a single parent. My son (my baby) was used to Dad earning a living wage for the first ten years of his life. Now, I can't even afford to buy a decent vehicle. It would be great to find a life-partner but pretty hard to do. Who wants a man with on a fixed income with not much (except memories and honest intentions) to offer?

[CountAllVotes]

81. :(

Don't be so hard on yourself. You seem to be a decent man and I wish you the very best. We can consul each other and hope that things may improve even though we know that they won't. If they could/would improve we would not be having this discussion would we?

Hang-in there my friend and I think you need a so here you go ...

[CountAllVotes]

91. btw ...

I'm still have my car which is going on 15 years old. It must last forever as I have no way to get another one. I'm kind of glad in a way as who wants one of these new computerized things that cost lots and lots of $$$ to fix?

As for me, I guess I got lucky. My lawyer got my case through ASAP after going blind and yes, that is what it took -- going blind and had no way to go and "see" a doctor being I was bedridden as well. *eek*

Shame shame shame on these people that are so self-absorbed that all they think of is their "portfolio" and Wall Street!

I would never wish blindness nor the disease I have on anyone but ... at times ...

[customerserviceguy]

3. The Social Security retirement funds

will be in the same boat not too many years down the line, I would expect a fix for both of them to come at the same time. But, if and when it does, it will have the feeling of the 'grand bargain' that so far Congress and the President have managed to slip-slide away from whenever one was nigh.

Whatever does emerge as a fix is bound to disappoint everybody at least a little bit, and many of us a great deal. And if it takes place in the next two years, it's going to be crafted by a Republicon Congress, and signed by a President who has no more elections to have to manage political expectations.

[LiberalElite]

5. that term "Grand Bargain" - I always wondered

what's so Grand and a Bargain for us in that?

[customerserviceguy]

8. The only thing grand about it

would be that politicians could finally have it put behind them, and shove the problem off a generation or so down the line. The Social Security reforms of the mid-Eighties were passed by people who knew they'd either be retired or dead by the time that another fix was needed.

Of course, they had an entire baby boomer generation to raise tax rates and wage bases on, in order to keep the pyramid going, they knew that when it was time to pay the boomers that the Gen X,Y, and Millenials wouldn't be enough to keep it all going, but it wasn't their immediate problem. Now, we face the fact that either benefits will be cut, or payroll taxes will go up drastically, or some combination of both.

[LiberalElite]

11. Ah. Thanks for explaining. nt

[NewDeal_Dem]

19. The supposed 'fix' didn't fix a damn thing, it was just another scam. And you're misinformed;

according to citations on Wikipedia, the entire baby boom (1945-1964) was 76 million births.
and some of them are long dead.

Gen X has 84 million; Millennials/Gen Y has 80 million, or 164 million. (Gen Y and millennials are the same generation, btw.)

The US has a bigger GDP per capita than ever in history -- and that's in inflation adjusted terms. So if there isn't enough to go around, something else is going on.

[customerserviceguy]

25. Well, then

I guess we'll see another round of "raise the retirement ages of Gen X, Gen Y, and Gen Z (if there is one)" and make sure we jack the payroll tax to ten percent for each the employee and the employer share, and let the politicians of 2060 worry about the consequences.

Most baby boomers made pretty good money, relatively speaking. I doubt that the inflation-adjusted pay of the later generations can match that, but they're apparently going to have to try, given your conclusions about their size.

[NewDeal_Dem]

32. Doubt they can either; but who's getting all the money, since GDP per capita is larger than

ever?

Maybe instead of whining about the young or the old getting too much or not enough (& I'm here to tell you, most boomers aren't getting as much as you think), people might unite to fight the people who are stealing the economy.

It's a big of hard work, but more productive than spreading false information.

[customerserviceguy]

37. Your question

"who's getting all the money" has a simple answer. It's the folks being paid Social Security benefits right now who are getting the money. In order to afford benefits after the trust funds are exhausted (and I make the case that this has already happened, as future redemptions come out of more borrowing) taxes will be raised and benefits will be cut, just as happened about thirty years ago.

As for what baby boomers make, most of us got some employment commensurate with our education level, and those who borrowed modest sums in our youth to make it through higher education were eventually able to pay that back. I really don't know how the twenty or thirtysomethings of today can pay back several tens of thousands of dollars from the $10-12 an hour jobs that all too many of them have. Taking their FICA deduction to ten percent is going to really hurt them, especially with nonexistent wage inflation.

The idea that there is some sort of black hole sucking money out of Social Security and into the pockets of rich people is just a delusion. The whole system was set up as a pyramid, where ever larger generations pay to fund the retired generation, and everybody knew that was the case. When generations grow significantly in size, and/or ability to afford higher payroll taxes (as happened when the baby boomers got hit by the 1980's reforms) then the system chugs along. It's when generation sizes stagnate and pay drops that we find the system starts lurching towards a crisis.

[NewDeal_Dem]

41. you midunderstood. Real (inflation adjusted) US GDP per capita is higher than ever before in

history, yet all we hear, e.g. from media and persons like yourself is how there's not enough money to go around, baby boomers are taking more than their share, workers are taking more than their share, blah blah blah.

The average SS payment is about $1200/mo -- about 1400 for a man and about 1100 for a woman. The MEDIAN benefit is even lower.

That's after boomers paid double most of their lives (thanks to the 80s Reagan 'fix' that fixed nothing but made the boomers pay for their elders and themselves). And SS is the major source of income for the majority of baby boomers. Yeah, living the high life!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780010.html

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita

US GDP per capita is about $50K, the highest in history. That's $50K/year for every man, woman and child in the US, working or not.

I repeat, WHO'S GETTING THE MONEY? It isn't the boomers as a generation, and it's not later generations either. Which is why the attempt to divert people's discontent into generational war by persons like yourself and the CATO institute is so gosh darn funny and sad at the same time.

[aspirant]

56. How could you check this?

Number of US employees x $50,000/yr FICA payment = total annual SS deposits

Any other variables involved?

If they don't match let's sound the alarm!

[NewDeal_Dem]

57. huh? what does the fdic have to do with anything?

[aspirant]

58. Sorry, made the change.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. Raise the pay-in income threshold up to $500,000.00. That should fix the problem! Tax the rich.

Tax the rich until they are rich no more.

[lancer78]

82. Not neccesarily

you will have to raise the amount of payouts as well to compensate those who would be paying more into the system.

[bvar22]

29. Here is how Candidate Obama was going to fix Social Security:

(one of the reasons he got my support)

I strongly support Raising-the-Cap!
Unfortunately, this avenue was never mentioned again after he was elected.



You will know them by their WORKS.

[NewDeal_Dem]

33. +100

[customerserviceguy]

39. Cap raises

will indeed be a part of future entitlement reform. But, only a part.

I've never yet seen anything that calculates how much raising the cap will generate, especially when netted out by increased maximum Social Security benefits that will be required to be paid out under the current law's functionality. When you increase the amount of wages being taxed, you increase the maximum benefit.

[exboyfil]

40. You don't necessarily have to raise benefits

You already have three tiers for benefits based on lifetime income/contributions. Create a fourth one that zeroes out benefits. Even without that approach it still is a net positive to the system when those over an average lifetime $50K/yr contributes to the system (the numbers are approximate it has been a few years since I did the calculations). I always thought the best way to handle it was no additional benefits accrue, but your percentage of contribution is reduced after you go over the cap limit (say 60% of the current contribution amount - that would be about the same as the reduced benefit for being over $50K/yr). It is fair because those already making over $50/K are carrying the burden of the system on their income up to the cap limit.

Another thing to consider - why should only wage income be taxed for Social Security. What about dividend and capital gains?

[daleanime]

49. +1

[Dont call me Shirley]

53. Ask Bernie Sanders, he has the facts. Raising the cap will raise all the revenue needed.

SS ain't broke and it ain't going broke!

[Stardust]

55. Why is not raising the cap such a sacred cow? I don't recall ever hearing that Congress was

debating it. It seems like such a common sense solution. I just don't get it, do you?

[Hoyt]

64. Because it is a significant tax increase, and a lot of Democrats woould feel

impact. Not saying it's the wrong thing to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. It's a slight increase only appllied to the portion of income in excess of the cap at $118,500

So let's say your income is 150,000 and the cap was removed or lifted higher, your increase would be 1,984 on an income of 150,000. Slightly more than 1% increase on total income.
Other plans have a doughnut hole, cap remains at current levels, resumes again at 200,000 in income, or 250,000.
Many ways to do it. People with plenty would pay a bit more. I never would have bothered me.

[Hoyt]

67. It's a 12 percentage point increase on amounts over the cap. We can't get any

increase through Congress now. And, it still doesn't solve the problem unless you deny any benefit increase to those who would pay more. And we have other needs too, like a real health system for all, etc. Cutting military spending will help. But, who is going to get those things through Congress. Truth is, we are in a mess, with no easy solutions, especially when everyone in government is playing politics.

[dixiegrrrrl]

78. FWIW....when an SSDI recipient turns 65, they are switched to regular Soc. Sec. funds.

There has been a lot of talk about people going on SSDI a few years before retirement.
Come age 65, they will be off that fund.

[customerserviceguy]

95. Good point

But since the disability fund will automatically be refunded from the old age fund, it's all the same anyway. We will soon need some sort of fix, and the devil will be in the details. Frankly, we had better hope that the fix doesn't come in the next two years, because the only chance we have in the near future of having a fully Democratic Congress and control of the White House is in 2017, and that's only if Hillary has coattails.

[onecaliberal]

6. I hate every piece of shit that will hold

Up this funding when they threaten to shut down the government if POTUS didn't agree to more fucking bank bailouts.
What in the hell is wrong with this country. This beyond sickening.

[Ramses]

9. imagine 9 million more Americans fucked over

There are already close to 50 million people in this country on food assistance. Not to mention the homeless population in America. Now 9 million more will have their legs cut out from under them

[Beartracks]

16. WTF? How can that be?? We gave the rich all the money so they could create jobs and save us all!

of course

===========================

[Igel]

7. For 2013 there was a $32 billion shortfall.

Total payouts were $142 billion.

Probably higher this year. % of disabled in the US population has increased a lot in the last 5 years (recession, the thinking has been, pushed some marginally disabled to stop working and go on disability).

If there's an increase in benefits, the # will be higher. If unemployment drops and the average wage increases, the # will be smaller.

Problem is that it's not from general revenues but from the FICA spending. Eliminate the shortfall in SSDI and the retirement "trust fund" will drain faster.

Talking about individuals may pull at empathy and stoke sympathy, but the actual impacts to budgets and allocations are where a solution's going to be.

www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ssa.gov%2Foact%2FSTATS%2Ftable4a2.html&ei=SpOcVMbMO5PnsATX_oH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGVKXP51JVOKW6_jZyUHQlxuSlouQ&bvm=bv.82001339,d.cWc&cad=rja

[NewDeal_Dem]

20. "pushed some marginally disabled to stop working and go on disability"

more likely they lost their jobs and that seemed the only alternative open to them.


"the actual impacts to budgets and allocations are where a solution's going to be."

gee, nobody said that when it came time to save the bankers' bacon.

[onecaliberal]

43. Not to mention you don't go on disability.

Your doctor has to agree. A lot of disabled people are denied over and over.

[L0oniX]

69. Indeed. You have to get a lawyer or you will be denied and then the lawyer gets some of the back pay

[SomethingFishy]

72. Yup... My wife has emphysema, heart disease,

diabetes, neuropathy, arthritis, and a host of other ailments, she's on oxygen 24/7 and mostly in a wheelchair.

We had to hire a lawyer, and it took over 2 years and 3 separate hearings to get her disability. They don't just give that shit out.

[gerogie2]

10. I've already planned for it

The republicans will not help heart attack victims like me. We don't matter in their district or State. They wont mess with and will support SS retirement, but people like me are on the chopping block. The AARP will not lobby for us either.

[Cryptoad]

14. I can see right away

that yall did not get the memo! There is not such thing a Economic Liberty, the Super Rich are endowed by their creators with the Right to Own Everything!

[Doctor_J]

17. What, no ponies? They just don't understand how government works.

I think they'll probably use this "impasse" as an excuse to give the entirety of both SS packages to wall street.

[Skittles]

24. the swooners have not come up with the meme to cover this yet but they will

just give them time

[840high]

26. "swooners" - like

[tooeyeten]

18. When it comes to GOP in Congress

They seem to think(if you can call it thinking) that anyone who can't afford to raise kids on their own w/o so-called Gvt assistance, they shouldn't have children. They're pretty disconnected to the real world in America since most of them are millionaires, and live off of investments aside from their earnings in Congress. You cannot reason with the GOP, they don't care, they don't get it, and besides they pander to bigots(who are on Medicare, Social security) and billionaires who leech off of taxpayers. Only a groundswell of grassroots voters who threaten their re-election or glut of coverage in MSM will possibly move them to serve their entire constituency, the poor, the struggling, the shrinking middle. Until then the situation you describe is considered anecdotal, not relevant to them or requiring major overhaul in Gvt. They are, for lack of a better more appropriate word, a bunch of shits IMHO.

[NewDeal_Dem]

21. and you might see, if you study the matter, that a lot of the super-rich often have more than

their allotted 2.1 children per couple, despite all their public talk about how the planet can't support people any more.

there's always enough resources for them and their spawn, it seems.

[madfloridian]

22. Kicked and recced.

[madville]

23. There is a fallback built into the current law

When the SSDI trust fund is depleted in 2016 the law allows them to start drawing from the larger OASDI trust fund. If they start doing that it moves that fund's depletion date up from 2032 to 2026. So it's quite possible that there are only 11 years of reserve funding left for all Social Security programs.

[PoliticAverse]

51. The fix that will probably be agreed to is to redirect some FICA taxes from Social Security

OASDI into SSDI. This has happened before when the SSDI fund needed to be bolstered and will
also shorten the time before the OASDI trust fund is exhausted.

[Alkene]

68. Couldn't they just raise or scrap the cap?

I think Bill Gates would get by just fine after paying S.S. taxes on more, or all, of his income.

[PoliticAverse]

77. Of course they could, but it doesn't seem likely the Republicans would agree to that. n/t

[abelenkpe]

27. Here would be a good place to print. nt

[doc03]

28. I am afraid it is all a house of cards SSI, SSDI, Medicare,SS and our pensions and nobody is doing

anything to correct it. How about taking that $15 billion profit they made on TARP saving banks and putting it to use bailing out (people)..

[NewDeal_Dem]

36. But they didn't say that about the money that bailed out the banking industry, did they?

No, that wasn't a 'house of cards'.

They created that money out of thin air and spread it around to the top 5%.

The rest of the population can die on the streets, what do they care? It doesn't affect them.

[liberal_at_heart]

45. Yeah. Where did that $15 billion in profit go? It sure as hell didn't go to shore up food stamps.

I think you are right. It is all a house of cards. They keep acting like they can continue to fund war, give money to banks, and give tax breaks to the rich. When it comes time for real issues like SS or SSDI they bicker but eventually both sides agree there needs to be temporary funding with spending cuts tied to permanent funding. Then they just kick the can down the road some more. This is why I am not a democrat anymore. I am tired of democrats going along to get along. We have to fight back so we can stop funding banks and war and start funding social safety nets, education, and wages. Any candidate that wants my vote will have to prove with their voting record that they vote for legislation that helps regular people, not banks and war profiteers.

[WinkyDink]

31. This will put the 2016 contenders to the test, especially the Democrats.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. All they have to do is say the right thing and then do the opposite when they get elected.

That's what they all do. I won't be paying attention to what they say during the campaign season. Their voting record is all that matters to me.

[negoldie]

71. BS

Try making it on $840 a fucking month and my wife's $456 a month. Too much for food stamps, too little to eat on. Fuck those fuckers.

[CountAllVotes]

80. We are in the exact same boat

I bring in a little over $900.00 a month and that hefty $80.00 a month pension. My husband brings in just over $400.00 a month.

I did not marry him for money obviously.

Stupid me?

on this whole charade.

What will happen to those on SSDI that are blind and in wheelchairs? Will they leave us out on the street to simply rot?

The irony of this entire thing is that the big bucks people could care less and yet they are the very first ones to file for benefits if they think they have a shot of getting them and they know how to lie lie lie lie lie real well.


Women don't make as much as a man, esp. during the time I was in the work force (1970s ---> ), hence one reason for the paltry amount of money I receive. How many worked their first job on graveyard shift for $2.88/hr.? You certainly never dared think to ask for more, much less $15.00/hr.!

At that time you never got a raise nor a promotion unless you slept with someone in too many cases, something I would simply not do! So, here I am today wondering if they will STEAL MY (yes MY) disability insurance. It is insurance that every working American pays into in case they become totally disabled as is my unfortunate case. Everyone should be highly concerned about this as it can happen to anyone!

Thanks for nothing is how I feel. This was not in my plans BUT I know of one too many right-wingers collecting hefty pensions that file for SSDI the second they retire out the door and you better believe that this is part of their plan! They bawl like babies and are shocked I tell you, shocked, when they find out that it is not an instant process! FUCK THEM and I am not one to use the "F" word often!

Hang-in there, that is about all I can say!

for all us in this very sad and very pathetic boat that we cannot opt to jump off of (or will we have to do just that?)!

[daredtowork]

79. The other zinger in California: No food stamps

In California, if you get SSI/SSDI, you can't get food stamps. (in cases where it seems a family does, it might be that the children are the recipients). Section 8 apartments are impossible to get unless you are bringing a portable section 8 eligibility you got from another place. Low income apartments attached to a particular building are possible but have wait-lists in the hundreds. So many are paying full rent on their SSI/SSDI checks. Which means they have NOTHING left for food!!!

It seems like no newspaper has even questioned this ridiculous law that withholds food stamps from people who get SSI/SSDI in recent years. It's possible we will see disabled and elderly people housed, but starving to death as their meager benefits are cut.

[PoliticAverse]

83. California adds money to people's SSI payments in lieu of food stamps...

From: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11125.pdf

People who receive SSI in California cannot
get SNAP, formerly known as food stamps,
because the state adds money to the federal SSI
payment instead.

From: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap-special-rules-elderly-or-disabled

An important exception to this is that in the State of California SSI recipients are not eligible for SNAP benefits, because they receive a State supplement to their SSI benefits in lieu of SNAP benefits.

[daredtowork]

85. The money does not make up for the cost of living

The trade off for food stamps was $10.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/05/local/la-me-food-stamps-20100702

[CountAllVotes]

87. Your talking about SSI

Not SSDI which is an entirely different thing.

If you don't have 10 years of work history (40 quarters) behind you, you do not qualify for SSDI.

As for food stamps, what's that?

[PoliticAverse]

89. That's right, I was responding to the post about SSI/SSDI recipients not being eligible

for SNAP benefit in California. Apparently this true for SSI benefit recipients but not
SSDI recipients.

[CountAllVotes]

90. You are correct

There are no "frills" that come with SSDI, believe me. You get nothing "extra", not even $10.00 in food stamps which could come in handy given what some people that receive SSDI are trying to live on.

People in this boat, the boat I am in, shop at discount stores and buy food items in bulk (like 20 lbs. of rice at COSTCO). You figure out many ways to save a buck. It is a rather tiresome way to live I must admit.