Millions of Americans get by on Social Security alone

[lovuian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050816/bs_usatoday/millionsofamericansgetbyonsocialsecurityalone

Mary Rathbun gets an $809 check every month from Social Security and an additional $100 in food stamps. The 74-year-old former nurse pays $550 in rent for her apartment in St. Helens, Ore. That leaves less than $400 for food, utilities and other expenses, including medical bills.

ADVERTISEMENT

"It takes a lot of management," says Rathbun. "I watch for things that are on sale and don't drink soda." She's fortunate, she says, because her treatments for colon cancer - which has spread to her lungs and liver - don't require a lot of costly medications. "I think the good Lord looks over me," Rathbun says.


When Social Security was launched 70 years ago Sunday, it was meant to be a supplement for retirees, not a full pension. But today, 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone, the Social Security Administration says.


Living on only Social Security isn't a happy prospect. It means stretching every dollar, depending on a patchwork of family, charity and state programs to pay for what Social Security doesn't cover - and sometimes doing without. Those living on nothing but Social Security are often single women and minorities. AARP, the senior advocacy group, says 25% of retired women, including 46% of unmarried Hispanic women, have no income beyond Social Security. AARP also says 33% of retired African-Americans live on Social Security alone.


Those numbers could grow as the baby boom generation enters retirement. Currently, 53% of people in the workforce have no pension, and 32% have no savings set aside for retirement. The number of traditional pension plans - the kind that guarantee a set amount of money for life and that have propped up many of the pre-boomer generation - has fallen to 29,651 in 2004 from 112,208 in 1985.


The average Social Security payout is $955 a month, $11,460 annually. The benefit can be more or less, depending on how many years you worked, how much you earned and the age you started taking payments. If your check is less than $579, you can get Supplemental Security Income. But that just brings your monthly income up to $579
more...

Americans living on social security is a fact!!! And Bush wants to take that away from them!!!

[Daphne08]

1. I grew up in the rural South (and recently lived there again

before moving to the West Coast) and I know that this is true.

There are many, many people (many of them were small farmers) who have nothing except Social Security.

[roguevalley]

31. The character of a nation is judged by the quality of its treatment of

the most vulnerable, the poor and the elderly. I guess you know where that puts us now. Its amazing, isn't it? The generation that got the best of everything is turning its back on its parents and grandparents. A pox on our house.

[Chicago Democrat]

2. My birth mother lives on 600 dollars per month

if it werent for charity of relatives, she would starve.

[saigon68]

18. CAT FOOD ON SALE AT THE DOLLAR STORE--- 4 CANS $1.00

</sarcasm>

What will it be today Grandma? Food? or your pain medication prescription?

Good thing we are winning in Iraq-Nam,just think if we spent even a little bit of that money on medicating this poor woman until she dies in a cheap sleazy room, her days racked with pain.

[lovuian]

3. Its pretty bad when the Millionaire Bush tells elderly your

$500 month is too much!!!

[saigon68]

16. The Bush criminals look down on these people

As lazy undeserving slugs.

Their motto is

"THE POOR--THEY ARE SO DREARY"

[fasttense]

21. Just another middle class entitlement.

Those middle class retirees think the US owes them their Social Security money they paid in for all those year. Don't they know that the rich need it to help our booming economy? Are there no workhouses, are there no prisons???:sarcasm:

[daleo]

4. Pay people more during their working career and they might save more.

If people don't have other savings, it is almost always because they didn't get paid enough to set aside much money. Sometimes, though, corporations like Enron steal their pensions. Other times corporations like United Airlines go bankrupt and they lose their pensions that way.

[KoKo]

6. And inflation during the 70's and early 80's ate away much savings for

those who are now retired. They lived through up and downs in the economy. Folks forget that it wasn't always like the 90's or now when buying a home for nothing down is easy and when owning a home meant you had to pay 8 to 10 percent on a mortgage every month...that's what it was like under Nixon, Carter and early Reagan. Folks didn't make as much as now and the cost of living was much higher. No low price Walmart goods made in China for 2 cents an hour, either. Those living on Social Security now had a much different work history from those in the work force today.

True there was more availablilty for pensions but Reagan sort of destroyed that and people did try to save more...but everything cost more. Then there's kids schooling and needs and health care. Life takes tolls folks don't always anticipate or are able to deal with.

But the Bushies wouldn't understand that. They think that if everyone worked as hard as they do they would be rich and not have to worry. :-(

[jwirr]

11. Bingo! Didn't bushie say "Its Hard Work"?

[fasttense]

22. Not to mention that the stock market has been flat for the last five years

so any savings put in the stock market or a mutual fund did nothing.

[EC]

7. There used to be an added incentive to saving also,

back before Reagon, there was actual interest paid on savings. The bank in reality is borrowing our money, and should be paying us interest for it's use...

The highest interest I can remember was 5.6%, now I get .005% on my checking account, nothing on savings, unless you get CD's.

[converted_democrat]

24. Spot on, SPOT ON!!!!! n/t

[hyphenate]

5. Yeah

Tell me about it. Disability is all I get a month, and my food stamps have been reduced to under $50 a month. See if most people can live on that.

[Zorra]

8. We have to stop the republicans from ending the Social Security Program

through privatization at all cost.

Now that they have destroyed our democracy, ending Social Security will be the jewel in the republican fascist crown.

[kodi]

9. all a lot of americans have to look forward to is govt cheese and cat food

.

[jwirr]

10. I spent my life taking care of my severely disabled

daughter rather than placing her in a very expensive institution. I held jobs as I could during this time but they were low-pay jobs and part-time or temporary jobs so I could interface with her schedule. I now live on $556.00 a month. I also have Medicaid for medical expenses. I live in the midwest. We need to protect the programs that are the only help we have. If we did not have these programs now there would be a depression as big as the last one with bread lines and all. Many of the poor are already one step away from homelessness and go to food shelves and food kitchens already.

[vickitulsa]

12. I live on SSDI and it's $688 per month.

That is my income, period. And I can vouch for the accuracy of the information in this article.

I'm 56 years old, retired way earlier than I'd planned due to medical disability from a career as an executive secretary in which I was at my peak. I have carpal tunnel syndrome, severe OA (osteoarthritis, the most common kind) and tendonitis in both hands, which causes pain so excruciating that I cannot shake hands with anyone and cannot turn on faucets without extensions on the handles. I often use a voice recognition software program to type and I can barely drive, though I do put about 100 miles a month on the car I use.

I have been on pain medication for my hands and for my right knee pain for about five years. I've had four surgeries on that knee, the last one in 1995 to replace the joint with a shiny new titanium and plastic model, but the knee was so bad this last-ditch surgery didn't fix it. I sometimes use a cane, but it hurts my hand to lean on it so.... I guess you could say I've sort of run out of body parts with which to compensate!

I was awarded SSDI during the second phase of the application process, called a "reconsideration" and before the first official "appeal," and I did the apps myself, without a lawyer. I knew how because I'd helped a couple of other people over the years fighting for their benefits in an SSDI appeal.

Important note!~~ MANY PEOPLE deserve and would qualify for SSDI, SSI, or plain old SS retirement income who do not currently receive it simply because they do not know how to go about the application process or cannot sufficiently fight the system during that process. A lot of these people just "fall through the cracks" and many end up on the street or in jail or prison or a mental institution when that shouldn't be necessary.

I receive $65 per month in food stamps, and Medicaid used to pay for my monthly medications, but now they've switched me over to Medicare paying for my meds. I rely on five meds for hypertension (yes five for high BP alone), plus two forms of oxycodone for pain (90 mg daily, which isn't all that much for a pain patient), a non-narcotic muscle-relaxant for spasms which are frequent if I get any exercise or do much at all, and I insist on remaining active so I must deal with these things. I also take thyroxin and now Prilosec OTC.

All of these except the Prilosec are paid for or else I would not be able to get them and I would die. I would surely die because my BP would escalate to stroke/heart attack levels within two days and the pain I have without the oxycodone would have me putting a bullet in my brain in that same time frame.

When Medicaid paid for my meds, I received mostly generics, which is fine by me as long as they work, and they usually do. But now that they've switched me to Medicare payment of meds, things have changed and ALL my meds that come in a generic MUST be given to me in generic. Also they have reduced what they will pay for in a couple of cases -- one of them being my primary pain med, so I am having to see my doctor this month to re-arrange what I'm taking. I am VERY fortunate to have a good doc who understands these systems and also respects my own understanding of my medication needs. He is a pain specialist as well.

I sometimes wonder how I make it from month to month, but I do. I live a simple life, a minimal life, financially speaking, but it's a good life all the same. I've had to really juggle a lot of things to achieve this, however, and it's taken me a good five years to do it. I live in a small, ancient motorhome, which I happen to love now though it was a difficult adjustment at first. I've learned to utilize all the systems mentioned in the article to help me get by without feeling totally deprived of some things most folks count on being able to have. There are advocacy groups and local charity groups and even individuals who will help if you learn how to go about applying for that help. I would not be doing as well as I am if I hadn't had friends in online groups who helped me find the assistance I need that is not covered by my Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and state-run Soonercare programs.

While my mom lives (she is 82 and not in good health), I can turn to her if I have an emergency financial need I cannot cover because she has a nice retirement income from my dad's job as a Highway Patrolman. The sort of pensions few people except government workers get these days. When she dies, that's the end of any other recourse for help for me. I have a brother who has done a little better than I have in life in financial terms, and I don't THINK he would let me be out on the street should my fragile support system fall apart, but I'm not even sure of that much. He cannot afford another dependent, as he has told me.

People like me live in a delicate state of dependence on support systems we cannot influence or control. It's a very exacting balancing act, and it requires good faculties and the ability to stick with applications processes until they finally produce results. So many people can't follow through on these processes, I know for a fact.

So when W talks about screwing around with Social Security, I understand why there are many voices raised loud and long in protest. I'm one of them.

:hi: :yoiks:

[Lars39]

14. This is one of those time I wish I could nominate individual posts.

Excellent post. :hug:

[JanusAscending]

15. I thought I had it bad before I heard your situation.!

I too live on SS., but I get widows benefits since my husband passed 3 yrs. ago. Had to sell our home because I couldn't make the mortgage payments alone. I bought myself a "double wide" mobile home in a Senior Park. Paid cash for the home with the profit of my home sale. I still have to pay park rent, and I do have a part time job that pays me enough monthly to make my car payments. I am on quite a few presription drugs, but I have an O8) of a Dr. who keeps me supplied with samples. Oddly enough, my part time job is with Companions and Homemakers,caring for my two elderly clients, and helping them stay in their own homes, instead of a nursing home. This is a very rewarding outlet, and benefit to me, knowing that I'm benefitting them as well as myself. Some day I may be in their shoes, and hope there's someone to care about me. I have come to love them dearly. I pray that Bush doesn't win again with the SS issue. :loveya:

[vickitulsa]

27. You're doing a great thing, Junebug. One of my best friends

left a managerial position at WalMart after she was injured (their fault) and treated very shabbily by them and criminally by "their" medical personnel, resulting in her being permanently impaired in walking. She won't lie down and give up, though, so what she did was find work doing what you're doing -- caring for elderly folks (older than us -- her hubby is a Namvet and she and I are around his age, all in our fifties). She is making more money, getting to keep more of it, and enjoying the deep rewards of helping old folks remain in their homes instead of getting dumped in nursing homes.

A benefit she had not dreamed of is improving the lives of my friend Kathy and her man Phil, though, because a couple of the elderly ladies she has worked for have already donated considerable useful belongings to them. Good stuff, quality things that have lasted a long time and will still give them much good use. Kathy is loved and appreciated by her clients, and I wouldn't be shocked if one of them someday included her in her will in a big way. She deserves such good fortune, in part because Phil (aka Grubworm but now Walking Bear or Nita Nowa in Cherokee) was an early Marine incountry during the Vietnam War (1964), sent to places where the U.S. "was not" officially, and therefore he has been denied a lot of his veterans' benefits. Like MOST of them, income he needs badly, and sufficient medical care for many service-related infirmities that the VA just won't recognize or treat. All they willingly do is give him medication -- preferably tons of it, the kind that makes him a zombie, and he won't take much of that. The VA often likes to medicate the Namvets till their near comatose so they cannot raise any more hell or draw attention to what the government is doing by way of "taking care of veterans for life."

The military paperwork on Phil's tours of duty in "our" war is curiously "missing" -- especially on a lot of the covert ops he was sent in on. These were in Laos and Cambodia he believes, though he and his Marine buddies never knew for sure. He remembers definitely that their missions included the insertion and extraction by Marine aircraft and Marine grunt squads of Navy SEAL teams. His DD-214 does not mention most of the things he did and places he served during the war.

Kathy and Phil are very good people, like you, and they live as close to the edge as I do, maybe even closer, at least before Kathy began working this job she has now. Like me, they make it a good life all the same, pretty much. They have lived in the country in an old mobile home on a little piece of land for many years. But now Phil is too physically disabled to do the yard work necessary to keep the weeds and the wolves from the door, literally!, so they have just moved to Fayetteville, AR to an apartment. She was already working in that area so her job will continue unchanged. They came close to losing their land and might yet lose it, and the bank took back the mobile home they'd been paying on for years.

One of my neighbors here in the RV park I live in also works weekends at a second job looking after homebound clients. Both she and Kathy get to sleep some during their shifts in these homes, but there's plenty of work to do as well.

If I could walk better and longer, carry things, and generally use my hands better, I would find a job just like you three have!

GOODONYAMATE! :hi: :9 :toast: :thumbsup: :pals:

[Iowa]

20. Yes, that was an excellent post by vickitulsa...

Bush must be prevented from looting Social Security. Your post demonstrates what is at stake better than any I have seen.

[vickitulsa]

29. Thanks, Iowa, and everyone who posted kind and encouraging words.

I like the way you put it, Iowa -- "looting" Social Security. Because that's precisely the way it seems to me they've been doing it for a very long time.

As for converted democrat's worry that the Republicans will manage to do away with SS no matter what it does to those of us who depend on it and the many millions more who will be needing it in the next few years for certain, I have to recall what my father said about this. He was a full-blood German, the great-grandson of hardworking immigrant farmers, who worked for 23 years as a trooper for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. He wanted to quit more than once (he didn't take orders very well, either on the Patrol or when he was in the Army in WWII ;)); but he and Mom decided he HAD to stay with the Patrol until he could retire because they would need that pension.

But both of them have relied on SS as well when they grew old and would have had a hard time making it without their SS benefits. Dad recognized the threat to Social Security but when we discussed this he always said the jerks in Washington would never be allowed to take it apart because the public simply WOULD NOT LET THEM. If you think about how many people DO truly depend on SS literally to stay alive, his view makes sense.

I still worry, too, but I won't give in to that worry. I'd rather FIGHT, do what I can to see that my reps and senators know they'd better not be voting for any bills that damage Social Security. This is a crucial issue for so many in this country, I just can't see the politicos getting away with blatantly and formally gutting SS. We'll have to keep a close watch on them, but aren't there some in Congress who are staying on top of this issue? Gads, I hope so!

[Iowa]

32. I'm enjoying your posts, vickitulsa...

I agree that the politicians won't get by with blatantly and formally gutting SS. What concerns me is they could tinker with it in a sleazy and underhanded manner and accomplish essentially the same ends - it would just take them longer. For example, I'm afraid they are already cheating existing beneficiaries by understating the true rate of inflation. Compounded over time, that can really erode the purchasing power of SS. I think we need an independent citizen advocacy organization that exists to calculate the true cost of living and announce it with great fanfare each year - just before the Govt. (through the BLS) comes out with theirs. If the government comes in too low, it would be a political issue and the people could demand an honest accounting. As it is now, we're just sitting ducks. The same government that must pay benefits is charged with determining cost of living changes. That's a huge conflict-of-interest, and it isn't right.

Another thing they may do is mess with the arcane inner workings of the SS system that few will understand or notice. For example, they could decide to base the initial benefit amount on price growth (CPI) instead of wage growth, as they have been doing. What percentage of the population even realizes that their initial benefit amount is determined using wage growth, while subsequent benefits (after retirement) are raised per the CPI? Not many. They could change it and people wouldn't even notice it at first. But 10-20 years down the road, SS would be greatly weakened.

If they succeed in weakening the program (and I tend to believe they won't be able to get it done) this is how they would do it, IMO. It would be designed to operate like a thief in the night, and they'd call it "The Saving Social Security Act".

Hopefully the Dems hold firm. If they don't, I'll abandon them in a heartbeat. Stopping the republicans from looting or weakening SS is my top political priority, by far, and I'm a guy who won't even start receiving retirement benefits for 9 years (I'm 53). Furthermore, I have been very lucky in the financial department and could survive (although marginally) without SS. My point is, it isn't only the people who depend on benefits now who are outraged about the Bush plan to ruin SS. Although some, like yourself, have a great deal more at stake than others, we're all in this together, and we'll all be outraged if they pull it off. This would hurt EVERYONE except the uber-wealthy. Nevertheless, I don't think they'll get it done, and your decision not to give in to the worry is a wise one.

:toast:

[fasttense]

23. Wow Vickitulsa, you have such a tough time and yet

you say "but it's a good life all the same." You have such a strong character. Hang in there.

[raccoon]

25. Great post, vickitulsa,

sounds like you have a really good attitude.

Having experienced tendinitis/RSI myself I know how that is. And how many people don't even know it exists--or believe it exists when you tell them about it.

And about, "The sort of pensions few people except government workers get these days. " You know that's right!!

[vickitulsa]

30. YES, Raccoon! And surely the contrast will become ever more obvious

between what government employees get in the way of pensions and benefits and what non-governmental workers receive. Already I keep hearing it mentioned in the media now and then, like the featured articles or TV news pieces about how cushy Congress has it in these areas of concern. "Retirement" is only pleasant when people can AFFORD to be retired! If they spend their golden years under the flooring at the saloon in gold rush towns, on their knees trying to scrape up enough dribbled gold dust to keep them alive, I think life cannot be very great for retirees. Of course that's a metaphor, but it seems apt to me. ;)

Do the people who get elected to even one term in the House or Senate really get some sort of "retirement" pension and other benefits such as medical care for the rest of their lives? I don't know about this, but everything I've heard seems to point that way.

Contrast that to the old man who lived in the rental travel trailer next door to me recently. He was in his 70's, and I only saw him once because he was dying of cancer and remained indoors the entire few weeks he was here. A home health nurse came to see him once a week, but other than that he had no visitors. I believe he ended up here because the rental RV's in this park are the cheapest rental units of any kind you can find in Tulsa. And they're not dirt cheap, either! The 25' trailer this man was in is infested with roaches and ants and the air conditioner barely worked -- keep in mind what the heat waves in the heartland have been like for the last 10 weeks, too!

I suspect the poor old guy had no family, or none that would care for him, and lived on SS income only. He had no car. I saw not ONE visitor except the home health nurse, who spent only about ten minutes here each week and wasn't even friendly enough to speak to me when I'd say hello. The man died before I had a chance to get to know him, even. By the time I realized he couldn't come out, that he had no other visitors, he was dead. I would have been over there with at least some homecooked goods if I'd known his situation soon enough.

The more stark these comparisons grow, the louder the outcry among the citizenry should grow as well!

[faithnotgreed]

33. we love you vicki - what a heart you have

so many slip through dont they

were so glad youre here and share this with us
with prayers and hugs...

[havocmom]

13. Will get worse. More and more pension plans are under funded or not

really funded at all. When boomers got to draw them, there will be some very nasty surprises for too many. The federal government is on the hook to back up those unfunded accounts. Guess who picks up the tab for corporations failing in their responsiblities to people who worked hard for decades?

Time to eat the rich coming soon to a soup kitchen near you. And why not, the rich have been dining on us long enough.

[wli]

19. the bad news is that they have Blackwater & private armies

BCCI is the future of the corporation... they're not going to fall so easily.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

28. Yep -- look at United and the coal companies

Bush's courts have been allowing many corporations to renege on their pension responsibilities while they give hundreds of millions to their board of directors members.

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. I would guess that MOST old folks get by on SS alone

The rw hates SS. They didn't want it in the 30's and they don't want it now.

[converted_democrat]

26. But I honestly think they are still going to do it, destroy it I mean.....

Bush has made no bones about the fact that he is not going to drop this bone until he gets what he wants. Bankruptcy Bill, CAFTA, Energy Bill, no average American wanted ANY of this stuff to pass, but it did. I'm sure you're familiar with all the polling from all of the different news sites. Nobody wanted any of this crap 70% to 30%, but that did not stop it from getting passed. He is systematically stealing everything we have for his cronies, period. They will destroy social security and then stand back and laugh at us like a bully on a playground, just like they have with every other monstrosity they have passed. I'm not at all saying we should give up, we should not ever give up.