A 20% reduction in SSDI benefits would drop me to $926 a month

[Kaleva]

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

I'd survive with the following monthly budget:

$50 property taxes
$45 property insurance

$50 water/sewer
$30 garbage pickup
$35 gas
$30 electricity
$70 phone/internet/Netflix

$60 Moped payment
$16 prescription co-pay
$41 dog medication
$150 payments on local accounts (hospital, hardware store, appliance stores)

$250 food (includes cost for pet food)

$827 total

Which would leave me a about $100 for any other expenses.

[SamKnause]

1. A 20% reduction will leave me with

$882.00 per month.

[Enthusiast]

37. You are undeserving.

Compared to the military industrial complex and the wealthy corporations. Apparently.

[TheMastersNemesis]

2. The GOP Still Thinks You Get Too Much.

People who are effected need to show up at GOP offices and shut them down and just raise hell.

[spinbaby]

3. And you're one of the lucky ones

You have no rent or mortgage.

When I was in the rehab hospital visiting a relative last week, I talked to a man who had lost his apartment because most of his disability check was going to Medicaid to pay for his stay in rehab. He had no place to go home to.

[Kaleva]

13. Thank God the house is paid for!

As it is, I'd have very little for upkeep and repairs if the SSDI reduction does go through.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Clearly, you do not need that dog ...

It wastes 1/3 of your budget! And, while you're at it ... dump the moped and phone/internet/Netflix. We, in America, likes our poor people to look poor!

{I hope you recognize the sarcasm}

I am hopeful that this won't happen ... there are too many SD recipients in Red districts.

[SheilaT]

9. Shouldn't he also do without gas and electricity?

After all, they are luxuries the Third World poor don't enjoy.

And the sad thing is, the people who want to cut SSDI really do believe that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. sadly ...

Yes they do.

[DebJ]

23. AT $30 and $35 a month for gas and electric, I WOULD be doing without them, myself.

Our utilities for a 1200 sq ft brick home run $100 a month.

[MoonRiver]

40. Yes, many more than blue states.

Maybe this will finally be the tipping point when the destitute, brainwashed Republican masses bolt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. I just wish the gop's actual actions ...

would have the same effect on republicans, as the perceived inaction of Democrats has on the left. It seems the right has a much higher bolt thresh-hold, where actual harm doesn't seem to quite meet it.

[MoonRiver]

43. True.

So many people are in desperate straights in Kansas, I thought Brownback would be given the boot for sure. But nooooo

Now he's announced the almost complete destruction of public education here. Still no Medicaid expansion, and resources for the poor are practically non-existent. Yet, if they vote, these desperate people will usually still choose the Republican, because "God told them to"

[YoungDemCA]

68. Seeing as how the Right constantly stokes up resentment and bigotry....

...against our side, against "Washington" and "liberal elites who are (they claim) taking hard-earned tax dollars ("YOUR money, NOT the government's!) from "ordinary, hard-working Americans" and giving it to "special interests" or spending on "socialist programs" that (they claim) bankrupt the country;

and seeing as how, by adopting the Libertarian economic philosophy that government can never work for anything (except the military, curiously-insert rambling about "'the Constitution" here!), so therefore, it is pointless to leave anything to "Washington bureaucrats" or in Reagan's words: "a narrow intellectual elite...that think they know better than the rest of us hard-working American citizens, that we can't govern ourselves!"-by adopting this philosophy, the Right has successfully turned its ideology into a virulent populism, particularly among segments of the white middle and working classes;

and seeing as how they think in Manichean terms of Absolute Good (the Right) vs Absolute Evil (the Left), then by definition, everything that is good in American governance is due to the influence of the Right, and everything that is bad is due to the influence of the Left;

...it's really not a huge surprise that in the world of the populist Right, right-wing conservative Republicans are never to blame for anything-it's always the fault of the Democrats (and the Republicans who were "foolish enough to compromise with them", so sayeth the Right), and if anything, the GOP's problem is always that they weren't conservative enough (As they have said about every Republican presidential candidate and President since their Patron Saint Ronald Reagan-including both Bushes, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

The paranoid, illogical worldview of the populist Right is hard to understand or comprehend from our perspective as liberals and Democrats... but maybe by beginning to comprehend it, we can defeat it.

[YoungDemCA]

67. I wonder if there are any statistics for how voters who are on SSDI, TANF, Medicaid...

SNAP, and other government programs targeting those American households that are in or near poverty-statistics on how they vote, I mean.

I suspect that a large number of them (maybe even a large majority) don't vote at all. Even those in deeply conservative rural districts; they're not the ones who are driving the conservatism.

[madville]

5. The program needs more revenue

It is currently a 1.8% payroll tax, they should bump it up to 2 or 3%. The worker and the employer split that payment, the employee currently pays 0.9% and the employer matches it. They also need to raise the income cap, it's currently at $113k annually.

Letting SSDI start drawing from the OASDI trust fund will keep it solvent but that also means that larger fund will be depleted in 2027 instead of 2033 as is currently projected.

[Yo_Mama]

36. Yes, we need to raise taxes to fund the program. Otherwise we are just cutting SS and DI a few years

down the road.

[Enthusiast]

38. But we wish to create an artificial crisis. The media will back us up by telling the

American people that their actions are entirely necessary.

As a matter of fact, on the radio (NPR) , TV news programs and in print, the official narrative is everyone on SSDI is a faker. They said it precisely that way on the once respected 60 Minutes.

[ND-Dem]

53. So that's why some people here are catapulting the same propaganda. The same rot everywhere.

[sabrina 1]

50. I'd rather cut the military budget to start taking care of this country. We spend billions on

wars, on infrastructure in foreign countries in order to persuade them to allow us to keep our bases there.

It is obscene the amount of money being drained from the taxes people pay.

So no need to raise taxes, we are a very wealthy country, just stop the outrageous spending on war that we do not need to fight.

Eg, start putting money into Alternative Energy sources and create employment that way.

End the wars, bring home the troops, if we ARE ever threatened here, the troops are not here, they all over the world.

The military is supposed to be for DEFENSE, not for profit for a few Corporations.

[Downwinder]

6. Won't that put you below the Medicaid threshold?

[madokie]

7. Don't bring it to their attention cause they just might take that 100 bucks too

heartless bastards is what we're dealing with here

[hollysmom]

8. Sorry your dog is sick

I wrote my congress man and senators - Hope it helps. I have friends on disability as well, it is not easy for them to make it. My brother got hit by a barrel at work a huge industrial barrel, he cant walk very much anymore, too painful, his legs are crooked. He is on disability. The last thing I want to do is have him move in with me. I have a house of stairs, I would have to add a room and a bathroom but worse, he would be living with me. I don't think I could take that. I really don't want them to reduce disability.

[Kaleva]

12. He's a rescue dog and was very abused by the previous owners

I'd make cut backs in other parts of the budget before giving him up.

[hollysmom]

20. Hugs to you, Mine are rescue dogs as well.

still don't want old sour puss, my brother living with me, he lives to complain.

[TheNutcracker]

10. Why is this soc sec talk not ALL OVER THE MSM????? huh????? Media????

[SheilaT]

11. Actually, in all seriousness,

you might want to start putting as much as possible on credit cards, and a few years down the road declare bankruptcy. Or, hooking up with a debt reduction agency.

[Kaleva]

16. I know a couple that does that but they have expensive toys.

About every 7 years or so, they file for bankruptcy.

[Downwinder]

18. They can't garnish SSDI, save the $1,000 atty. fee.

[gerogie2]

63. It is illegal to charge up debt on purpose then file for bankruptcy

If you lie about your income or assets that is a federal crime. I had a friend on SSDI that did that and his bankruptchy petition for his charged up credit cards was disallowed.

[SheilaT]

64. Sometimes bankruptcy is an honorable way out,

even if a person simply looks ahead into the future and sees that it may well be inevitable at some point. I'm certainly not suggesting this person lie about assets or income, but simply do what needs to be done over time.

[Takket]

14. Allow me to approach your problem like a Republican would...

$70 for phone, internet and Netflix? Internet and Netflix are a luxury, not an entitlement. you can keep the phone. That should cut you down to about $30.

$41 dog medication. Dog medication? Those benefits are for your survival, not that dog's. We can cut $41 more out of your budget, I'm sure you understand how. That takes care of the $250 pet food bill too.

So we've just cut another $321 out of your budget. You already said you had $100 left over after the 20%, so you are getting $421 more than you really need.

Obviously a 20% cut was not enough. We should take more.

Thanks for the advice,

The Republican Party.

Not trying to be a smart ass. This is really how these people think........

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. You forgot the ...

"Get job!" Grumble.

[Enthusiast]

39. Wouldn't it change things if we looked at the military in such a way?

[blkmusclmachine]

19. Bottom-line, the GOP wants you to go beg a Church for whatever little pittance they feel you deserve

And it will be a very rightwing Church. The pastor will get veto rights over every aspect of your and your family's public and private lives. It's known as Christian dominionism, or New Apostolic Reformation theology movement.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

[Delmette]

21. Who can live on $708 a month?

That is what my son would get with the 20% reduction. He has muscular dystrophy. We know what his prognosis is and just want him to live happy and as independent for as long as he can.

[jwirr]

22. I will get $229 which I think is less than General Assistance in our state. Of course for me I would

still get SSI. I checked to see which program I was on and I got on SSDI when I was 60 years old so and I do not think that you can switch to regular Social Security later. I suppose I should call and see if I can.

[Packerowner740]

49. I am on SS Disability and my disability payment is slightly higher than SS retirement

I asked about the difference at my local office and was told my payment would stay the same when I reached retirement age, it would not go down.

[merrily]

52. Social Security disability benefits are supposed to convert automatically to

Social Security old age benefits when you hit a certain age. I am not sure what that age is, though. It matters mostly because Social Security Disability benefits terminate if you earn more than a minimal amount in any given month, while Social Security Old Age benefits do not. Sounds like a call is the correct thing for you to do, if you want to clarify your situation with the Social Security Administration.

Since the amount of your Social Security benefit is fixed by how much you contributed to the fund during your last years of working, it really doesn't matter how much the welfare amount is. That matters only for your SSI eligibility and amount.

[jwirr]

54. I was thinking this might be a move that President Obama might be able to make on his own -

switching everyone on SSDI after the age of 62 over onto regular SSA. I am going to call and ask if that has been done in my case. I wonder if there will be cuts to SSDI clients who are now on their father/mothers regular social security? My severely disabled daughter is now on her father's account and he was able to wait to retire until he got on SSA.

Even if we can do that what the Rs have done is totally disgraceful. They are hurting the most vulnerable and it is not like R. Paul says - my daughter and many like her have a lot more than a bad back. If this had been years ago the ARC would have loaded a bunch of us on buses and taken us off to DC to visit our insane congress persons.

I laugh just to think of my daughter visiting them. First of all she would let out a scream and might just keep on screaming. When they come to remove her from the building I would quietly explain that she does not know what she is doing and IF they remove her I will be suing. Then she will need to have her diaper changed and I will insist on doing it in the privacy of the ladies congressional bathroom. Then it is lunch time and I will get as close to the congressional lunch room as possible and we will in the open for all to see put her food down the tube that protrudes from her stomach. And so on...... This is what they deserve - to be forced to see who they are cutting. Maybe I would even ask DR. R. Paul to attend her while she has a seizure. That would be a kick except I would be afraid he would kill her.

[merrily]

55. I think the automatic switch was provided for before Obama but I am not sure of the age. Also not

sure if the law provides for that, or it's an SSA regulation. If it's a regulation, the agency can change it. If it's a law, only Congress can.

I am so sorry about your daughter and you. If it is any comfort at all, the food tube is painless. I needed one for a couple of years. When my auntie got one after a stroke, my cousins were relieved whenI told them that.


Beware of D.C. kabuki, though; Remember: There can be no changes to Social Security laws (or any other laws) unless Democrats fail to exercise their minority rights to filibuster (or fake filibuster). same as Republicans when they are in the minority. If they don't bother, then it's far from a unilateral effort.

[jwirr]

56. A very big thank you for the information regarding the tube. She cannot talk so we have never

known how she feels.

I think I will write to Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken and Ryan Nolan regarding her "visit" to congress. Wish I had the ability to make it a virtual visit.

[merrily]

57. I don't know why the medical people don't assure families of this, esp. when,

like my auntie and your daughter, the patient cannot do it herself or himself.

Do they think people are born knowing these things? Or that families don't imagine it hurts? It sure looks as though it would hurt every second the tube is in there.

If my mother were here, she'd probably remind me how much docs have on their minds. That is what she would do when I would get frustrated that my son's pediatrician hadn't told me about this or that.

[progree]

58. Please seem #25. According to this and other press reports, its a House rule change

and there is no filibuster in the House. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026095887#post25.

That said, I am totally amazed that a House rule change can have such a drastic consequence, and that the president and the Senate are helpless to change anything except to bring political pressure on House members. But I haven't read anything that says anything different. Have you? Link?

Please see #48 too, which says the Republicans are using this as a bargaining chip to bring about a discussion of all of Social Security ... I dread to think what the have in mind.

LATER: What Jeff47 says makes sense to me, and clears up the mystery in my mind (and apparently you are right) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026094168

#115 - It's a rule about how the House writes bills. The Senate has no say. And all spending bills must start in the House - they get to write the bill.

Now, the Senate can amend the House bill and put the transfer back in, but the Senate has no say on the rule. (Progree disagrees with the first part of this sentence though. The Senate will write and pass its own bill that perhaps contains the transfer. It cannot amend the House Bill. But a Senate-House conference committee will then negotiate a joint final bill that will be submitted to the House and Senate for a final vote)

#28 - (Obama) does have to sign any spending bills that result from the rule in order for them to come into effect. But he can't change the rule.

So I guess what happens is that whatever House bill that is written will block the transfer. Let's say the Senate bill doesn't block the transfer (although Republicans are in the majority, and my understanding is that Senate rules say only a simple majority is needed to pass spending bills -- so a Dem filibuster is not an option). Then House and Senate conferees will reconcile differences in the two bills ... does the House rule affect what the House conferees can agree upon?

Beware of D.C. kabuki, though; Remember: There can be no changes to Social Security laws (or any other laws) unless Democrats fail to exercise their minority rights to filibuster (or fake filibuster).

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. When are these cuts to take effect? Anyone know?

[progree]

25. Late 2016, if nothing is done

Some excerpts:

Little recourse seen for Democrats on Social Security rule change (not allowing the Retirement Fund to replenish SSDI), Reuters, 1/12/15
http://news.yahoo.com/little-recourse-seen-democrats-social-security-rule-change-233948421--business.html

Without an injection from the main Social Security retirement fund, the disability program would have to cut benefits by some 20 percent, only paying out what it can collect from payroll taxes.

Congress approved the last such "reallocation" transfer in 1994 after several in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell has not commented on the request, but Republican aides say there is little he can do about a legislative rule passed in the House. Since revenue measures must originate in the House, the House rule would ensure that a routine transfer could not take place.

A Democratic aide on the House Ways and Means Committee acknowledged that not much can be done about the rule change until 2016, when the disability fund is close to depletion and an election-year showdown over benefit cuts could occur. ((With no action, it is expected to be depleted by late 2016, and that's when the 20% cut would begin))

[font color = red]ON EDIT 1/18/15 1139a CT[/font] - Please see #58 -- I'm amending what I've been saying -- no, the cuts are NOT automatic unless the House changes its rule back...

[ND-Dem]

26. it's only 'little recourse' because someone in our party wants us to believe that.

"oh our hands are tied, the big powerful republicans"

it's just so much bullshit.

[progree]

27. Well, the "big powerful republicans" do control the House, and have a considerable

majority there. Elections have consequences. And supposedly some House rule change is needed to replenish SSDI. Do you know any differently? What do you suggest?

[ND-Dem]

28. It's been done before, so any 'rule change' has been invented since.

I suggest standing up to the republicans instead of going along with their bullshit narrative, as you are.

But apparently there's a significant element in our party who prefers to go along with it, which is why I say 'it must be the republicans' turn to win'.

what a joke our politics is.

[progree]

29. The rule change was just put in place by the House majority (Republicans)

The rule change that prevents the OADI -> SSDI transfer.

What can the minority party in the House do to change it back?

[ND-Dem]

30. if so, then that's one talking point to attack the republicans with instead of pretending like

it's a fait accompli. Most americans are very supportive of social security and would willingly pressure the government were they effectively led to do so.

I guess we can't expect anything like that from the democrats though, no, we have to 'wait' because there's nothing to be done, according to the article.

oh yes, the minority party is powerless -- unless it's republican, in which case it's all powerful.

[progree]

33. "oh yes, the minority party is powerless -- unless it's republican, in which case it's all powerful"

Huh?

They are the majority in the House and the Senate.

As for the House, there's no filibuster, the minority doesn't count for squat in the House. In the Senate, its different, in that the minority can filibuster (as long as they have 41 or more votes -- as the Republican minority did in the last Senate, and as the Democratic minority does in this Senate. So hopefully we can use that filibuster power in this and other situations effectively).

>> The rule change was just put in place by the House majority (Republicans)" <<

>>>> "if so, then that's one talking point to attack the republicans with" <<<<

Yes, for sure, their bloody fingerprints are all over it.

>>>> Most americans are very supportive of social security and would willingly pressure the government were they effectively led to do so. <<<<

I sure hope so. The one thing I wonder though is if the majority of voters favor maintaining SSDI (DISABILITY) at current levels, particularly when it requires transferring funds from the OASI (RETIREMENT) to it. It seems there's a lot of narrative out there that SS Disability is a welfare program with a lot of welfare fraud and all that, affecting only a few unlucky people, while the Retirement fund is (relatively) sacrosanct because just about everyone expects to reach retirement age (62 for early benefits) some day.

[font color = red]On Edit[/font] - I don't agree that SS Disability is a welfare program rife with welfare fraud. But the righties pretty much have a monopoly of talk radio and cable. And they seem to almost monopolize e.g. comments on news articles like Yahoo News. So those are some ways they spread their narratives.

Part of the problem is that seemingly most DUers spend almost all of their interactive Internet time on DU, rather than out there on the other message boards and comments to news articles and social media countering these rightie narratives. Rather, we huddle in our little incestuous "safe havens" and endlessly message board message each other... and too often its more like a circular firing squad than a safe haven.

[progree]

31. Oh, you are a real tough one, WOW!

I suggest standing up to the republicans instead of going along with their bullshit narrative, as you are.

But apparently there's a significant element in our party who prefers to go along with it,

OK, I'm standing up to the Republicans, beating my hairy chest and all that, and posturing as a tough guy. But I'm just a message board pundit at best. I've written my congress people. What do you suggest the Democrats in Congress / Obama do?

[n2doc]

35. Just in time to blame Democrats during the 2016 campaign n/t

[sakabatou]

47. Please let something be done

[chillfactor]

32. you are very lucky....

I have to pay rent on top of other expenses..a 20% drop in income will put me out in the street!

[Kaleva]

44. Yes, I'm fortunate in some areas.

The house is paid for and there is no rent.

Property taxes are low.

I get my primary health care thru the VA but as it's a two hour ride to the nearest VA hospital, for minor stuff such as monthly blood draws, I go to the local hospital for which Medicare covers most of the expense.

For those who have to pay a mortgage, rent and/or medical bills, a 20% reduction in benefits would be devastating.

[Lars39]

45. Have you looked into Michigan's Tax Relief program?

You might qualify: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nykrmvi535zsgy45umgbarec))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-211-7b

[Shrike47]

34. My heart goes out to you.

Republicans seem to think that everybody is scamming the system. For many years, I practiced 'poor people law.'. Some of the people who received SSDI probably did not suffer from the diagnosed illness that made them eligible for benefits, but they sure were unemployable! They simply could not function in a job environment.

I guess they want to see people starving to death.

[MoonRiver]

41. "culling the herd"

[sakabatou]

46. Is this what they're proposing or what's going to happen?

[progree]

48. Unless something changes, it is going to happen - please see #25

[font color = red]ON EDIT[/font]

I found this, which says the GOP is using it as a bargaining chip, FWIW:

The GOP majority adopted a procedural rule to bar legislators from using Social Security retirement funds to support the disability program unless the move is accompanied by measures that stabilize the overall Social Security system. ... The GOP favors an approach in which issues with the entire Social Security system would be addressed.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/social-security-disability-funds-running-low-whats-democrats-194722284.html

I wonder what they have in mind for the entire Social Security program?

[progree]

59. Please see #58 - I'm amending what I've been saying, so no, its not an automatic

cut in benefits...

[merrily]

51. What is the point that this OP is trying to make?

[Kaleva]

61. In order to live on such an amount, there's a number of things missing from the budget

No mortgage or rent.

No car payment or money set aside for gas, car insurance, maintenance, or fees.

As I'm considered high risk, affording life insurance beyond enough to cover bare bones burial expenses is out of the question.

[merrily]

66. Thanks. So, your point is, it's nowhere near enough. I agree.

I've seen some odd posts on DU recently about Social Security in general and SSDI in particular, odd for traditional Democrats, anyway. So, I wasn't sure if you were trying to say, "Look, not only would it be enough to cover all my fixed expenses, but I'd have $100 a month to spare!" Or if you were trying to say, "Look how inadequate this would be."

I didn't want to reply based only on my own assumption about where you were going with your list.

[Octafish]

60. I'm so old I remember when Democrats would do all they could to strengthen Social Security.

Seems like it was a useful distinction at election time, too.

[gerogie2]

62. You will just have to cut back...

I'm on SSDI due to a heart attack and I'm filing for bankruptcy in a couple of months to deal with the upcoming cuts. You might as well as plan for these cuts for the best outcome. I'm going to give up my pet by the end of this year. The republicans don't care and Obama and dems except for Sanders are not going to stand up for us. YMMV. IMHO.

[daredtowork]

65. SSI is already less than this in the first place btw

This is why I think we should seriously start supporting "mincome" and scrap all means-tested and qualification types of support. If everyone gets it there are no questions about who "earned" or who "deserved" or who is "gaming the system". If some rich person is getting the Mincome on top of everything else, then we should be recovering it back through taxes. The Mincome should be so generous that it will create a renaissance in rural areas and survivability in urban areas - no "how little do people need to get by". A lot of this Mincome can be created by recovering the *incredible waste* in the systems we already have. Scrap those and redirect the money directly to the most direct way to end hunger, end homelessness, and maximize human choice and autonomy from the ground up.