Social Security disability on verge of insolvency

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't push the panic button yet. I heard while listening to the radio in the car, the industrialized nations that are facing bankruptcy, including Japan, will have a summit in the near future where they will figure out what to do, might even decide to print a lot more money. All these think tank nations will surely come up with something.

To work as a computer repairman, you would have an easier time looking at what stores sell, and researching how to fix those things. Outside of the standard stuff, like what can appear as a memory problem, and watching out for ESD and watching polarity in some cases, computers aren't that hard to fix. A motherboard, for example, can have a LOT of complicated things go wrong but if it doesn't involve cables, cards, memory, upgrading the BIOS, or replacing the battery, or the CPU or heat sink unit, the usual fix is just to replace the whole thing! If the cables, HBA, drivers, and settings aren't the problem with a drive, replace. If the memory unit has a problem, replace. Etc...

You would think a class would cover the basics, but the specifics of components change a LOT! I once wrote a book. It covered ALL computers, and most peripherals, made from like before 1971 to 1985! It also covered all standards! It was tiny, complete, and well done. I was HAPPY with it. Around 1990 or so, I mused that it would be good to update it. SO MANY things had changed, and SO many absolutes were now variable, that I decided to abandon it! I think the newest feature covered in it was memory interleaving. EXAMPLE?

In the book, I said that, outside of memory speed, the processor type and speed were a good indicator of performance. So a Pentium ran about twice as fast as a 486 at the same clock speed, and at twice the clock speed it ran twice as fast. of course cache and memory settings come into play. NOW, clock multipliers, various cores, split busses, and of course intel USED to try to make FASTER CPUs. NOW, they are actually making SLOWER ones ALSO to conserve power!

Hopefully you are right. I am glad to see a bit of hope in this failing economy.

zer0netgain said:
"Disability was never intended for people doing this. These people think they are entitled to be state supported because nobody is hiring them (join the club...a lot of younger people who can work can't find jobs either), and they are willing to do whatever it takes to scam some money from the government rather than find a way to earn a buck and leave disability for those who legitimately cannot work or would NEVER be employed no matter how much they wanted to work."
and,
"The disabled can not work or nobody will hire them because of their disability. That you've reached an age where nobody wants to hire you doesn't entitle you to be supported by everyone else. To uphold that is to say that the inability to get a job is an entitlement to have society support you, and that's going way too far."

SSI is intended for people doing this. It's called being "at step five of the sequential evaluation process to decide if you can make an adjustment to any other work that exists in the national economy. (See §§ 416.920(g) and 416.966.)"
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2011/ ... 16.945.pdf
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2011/ ... 16.966.pdf

Near zero jobs in the economy makes the necessary threshold much easier met for any set of otherwise minor impairments that greatly reduces the likelihood of successful competition for those jobs to where the cost of applying for them is greater than the expected value of getting one, means, at "step five", that the "any other work" does not exist in great numbers, for disability considerations. The States view applying for possible coverage under both SSDI/SSI being MANDATORY before individuals are eligible for many other State assistance/charity programs (some churches require it too).

The Social Contract demands that the inability to get a job satisfies prerequisites for the requirement that society supports the person. Under the Rehabilitation Act, a handicapped person has the protection from employers who regard an impairment as disqualifying from employment under the guise of "Your inability to get work" and "No job openings for you" but many for other people without impairments, etc. The ADA used the word "disabled" instead of "handicapped" and this gave an immediate deep brain freeze to the Marie Antoinette Ivory Tower Intellectuals at places like The Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg ... bility.pdf

Little did I know that impairments that resulted in disabilities would also turn me into "an evil speaking out of both sides of its mouth", especially since my most frequently noticeable impairments were speech impediments. Talk about prejudice!! ! The prejudicial nonsense holding that anyone making obligatory disability claims cannot make claims of job discrimination based on disability continued on past "Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corporation" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1008.ZO.html of 1999, in fact it inversed of what the Cato Institute was phobic about, namely, ADA disabled became nearly impossible until the effectiveness of the ADAAA in 2009, with a much too slow enforcement!! !

If avoiding "every person for themselves" is going too far, what do you think of the book "Contingency Cannibalism"???

Tadzio

Tadzio, get a text-to-speech machine and set yourself up in a comfortable government office telling people about the laws. That position will always be in demand. Speech impediment issue solved.

I recently heard that disability accounts for a very small chunk of government support, and we have more right to be supported under the law than seniors.

The main thing to consider is that you can use your disability/diagnosis as an excuse to get hired, and as a way to pressure employers not to fire you. In my state it is legal to fire people for no reason, and most corporations give a reason, however it is illegal to fire people for a reason that isn't in line with company policy. Another option is to get a business degree and become obsessed with running a business, and start your own business while hiring disabled people. Government doesn't create jobs, you do.

I am on disability and I have recently researched all sorts of semi-legal money scams in case funding dries up. They became extraordinarily fascinating to me. For instance, did you know that much of the donations to SSI and related funds are directly milked out of gullible seniors and people who are receiving services themselves? Imagine skimming 20% of their retirement pay by humbly asking for a donation of $50, $100, even as much as $500 directly using government address listings of senior citizens. And they are oh so willing to give. Many of the people doing these "social security recycling" scams are retired military special ops. Also, you can misrepresent your product or service to people from certain countries that don't have good regulation, even if you don't have anything to offer, and get tons of money from gullible people.

I also have a semi-legal idea to make money by taking money from illegal corporations using a little trick. They make their millions illegally, so taking their money has little if any projected repercussions. Although my involvement also would not directly contribute to more illegal activities.

Another idea is to deflate the currency by 100 times, making a loaf of bread cost 1 cent, and a car 100 dollars. This is the opposite idea to what is being proposed popularly, and it is more sensible in my opinion. It would appear to hurt the most wealthy people the most, while in reality it would benefit them by making US purchasing power all that much stronger, while hurting poor people the least. People who use cash would benefit the most because paper money is hard to regulate directly, while the super-rich have most of their money in bank accounts.

From a analytical standpoint, the government has been using the cheapest "inflation" graph that can be reported known as the Consumer Price Index. They disputed the fact that inflation hasn't increase that much and maintain the control over the Social Security payout.

Secondly, the government has been robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is why Social Security was running shorter on the money.

Thirdly, former Social Security Administrative executive said that the accountability behind Social Security finance management been easier than what Administration called it "confusing". This was a smokescreen for not fixing the problem.

Lastly, unemployment rises leads to higher Social Security application intake. It is true because I was one of them but have legitimate disabilities other than Autism.

What can be fix?

1. Transfer the money that was stolen in the first place

2. Hire more workers to speed the processing of applications. Less workers are more influenced about putting a denial stamp on your application if they have little time to decide. They make decision based on emotion, passing judgement based on lack of empathy on understanding the specificness of the disabilities. This wasted their time and money in a long run because the legitimate applicants have to fight it. On the other hand, this legal loophole has been known to discourage the not-so needy or legitimate disabled person if not illegitimate.

3. Fix the unemployment rate.

You are correct that SSA considers "inability to get work" (among other factors) in the determination of if you are unable to work under §416.966, but that is one issue, and does not create an entitlement to SSI benefits.

It may sound like splitting hairs, but I will say this....

The Baby Boomer generation is to blame for much of what is wrong. They are a generation that has always held the spotlight, demanded everything, always wanted their way. I find it amusing that they complain about the loss of their retirement savings when it was THEIR GENERATION that wanted business practices that enabled the fleecing of their life savings (they are their own worst enemies). They have messed things up so bad, and it will be my generation (and those that follow) who will live with the fallout of their choices and stuck with the job of trying to fix it.

Disability benefits are for those who have honestly fallen on hard times. Just as most Americans whine about being poor but really have no concept of poverty (travel to any number of 2nd world nations and you'll see poverty as hardly any American knows it), a lot of people are realizing, "Hey, now that I'm old enough that people don't want to hire me in this economy, maybe I can get the government to give me a monthly check rather than find an innovative way to get by."

It may sound like one and the same, but I'm sorry. That you're getting old and nobody will hire you because of your age or your increasing health problems...that is NOT the same as someone who has a health condition that keeps them from working. Hell, I know people with chronic health problems who insist on working as much as they can. I also know people with minor health issues who collect government benefits and REFUSE to TRY and get a job. That there is a GROWING TREND to ask to be put on disability just because you can't find a job in a bad economy and you are BLESSED (sic) to have some health condition you could claim is something that should get you on disability is an insult to everyone else in the same boat who is absent some health condition they can manipulate as their "reason" to qualify for benefits.

I have NO ISSUE with someone with a documented disability who wants to work but CAN NOT work getting benefits. Be that because they are unable to hold a job or nobody will touch them because of their disability, but when it comes to people getting older and finding that employers don't want older/prone to illness employees in a bad economy so they CHOOSE to flood the system in an effort to get on the government dole as if they are entitled to government support, that just pisses me off. They are taking limited resources from those who legitimately need it just because times are tough and they see a way to exploit a situation for personal gain.

I admit that I'm dark and cynical, and the Baby Boomers just keep giving me reason to be so.

Every honest person I know on disability doesn't want to be on it. They would rather be able to go out and work and live an independent life. I can't imagine why any sane person would CHOOSE to live on disability (if such a choice was possible) if they were given that choice between living independently or being dependent on government support.

If no one will hire you because of age or health problems, they become disabilities.

The reason the US doesn't have poverty like it exists in second and third world countries is our government which functions quite well in many regards if we can keep certain individuals and big business from destroying it.
I don't want to see a bunch more poverty stricken homeless, there's enough already. It doesn't matter what world you are living in, poverty is poverty and the governments of developed nations should make fighting it top priority. If they don't standards of living goes down while a few become mega rich at the expense of everyone else.

As compared to one's youth and good health being assets, I think liabilities would be a more-accurate term there. My own age and overall health do now restrict my activities, but those are not the things that actually qualified me for SSDI. So, one of the subtle differences being discussed here can be found in employers not being willing to hire people who actually can still work ... and/or in people who are just not willing to work even though they actually can.

And many people with disabilities find work and are sucessful.

If restricted from getting a job for whatever reason, shouldn't you qualify for relief of some kind? In my opinion, aid should go to people who cannot find work no matter what.
Those are the ones who really need it.

I admit that it is a tricky question.

When does having a health issue over which an employer chooses not to hire you (or no employer will hire you) become something where the state is obligated to support you?

It's an easier issue when it's a matter that affects you at a young age, normally DOES NOT happen, and puts you at a disadvantage to supporting yourself at all. When it's the product of naturally aging that EVERYONE faces in one form or another, when do you deserve to be supported by society as compared to pulling your own weight as everyone else at your age is expected to?

It's an easier issue when the petitioner for benefits left asking for benefits as the absolutely last option to exercise. It's a harder issue when someone realizes it'd be easier to just go on the welfare roles than struggle to support themselves.

Welfare wasn't created for everyone...just for a select few in need. When people want to expand who gets covered (regardless of actual merit), it strains the system.

Yes, those are tough questions.

As I see things, families are our "first line of defense" ... and then all of society either cares for others voluntarily or by edict (via government imposition (via taxes, insurance, etc.)). But then, even families face hard questions when a member is unwilling to even try to "pull his or her own weight", so to speak, when/while still able to actually do at least something.

Check the constitution of the United States of America. The founding fathers were wise when they wrote "promote the general welfare" in the preamble because there's always a handful in society who want to drag segments of the population down.

You deserve to be supported when you exhausted all other options to no avail. It should be a last ditch effort attempt at survival and should be respected as such, not scorned and ridiculed. People are struggling.


To receive something you should be required to submit proof that you are looking for work. This should be required for everyone except people who are so severely disabled there is no way they can do it. Once proof is provided job applications were submitted to several places without producing employment, let the individual apply for aid. Every week the individual has to provide proof they applied for jobs but were turned down in order to keep getting aid. Only the most unemployable will fail to find work during this relentless process, and those are the ones who truly need help just to survive.

It was created to "promote the general welfare" of the population and we the people need to ensure it works toward that end "in order to form a more perfect union."

Another thing the government can do to help the chronic, longterm unemployed is give companies who hire and keep them special tax rates while companies that have a high turnover rate should have to pay more taxes. This gives companies and businesses the incentive to keep employees over the long term.

The problem with this is needing to take into account what jobs people can do as well - sure people can apply for minimum wage jobs - I'm completely unable to do one of those, should that mean I have to be applying for a job I might be hired for but completely unable to do?
I'm looking and applying for jobs I am qualified for doing, but I can't come up with multiple every week, even with putting as much time in as others are, because there are fewer jobs that I'm physically able to do. So would I have to start applying for jobs that I'm completely not qualified for or unable to do in order to fill a quota rather than applying only to every one I can find that I could do the work for?

I'm not on SSI, but I've been highly suggested to apply because my cigarette sensitivity by itself makes me basically unemployable in most settings. I'm looking for one that's outside of those settings.

What kind of jobs do you apply for now? Not smoking shouldn't be an issue because you can't smoke in most buildings, anyway. You would apply for jobs you are qualified to do.