Social Security disability on verge of insolvency

Post Reply New Topic

I've had to do this for food stamp programs. What it meant in practice was I had to apply for minimum wage work while technically qualified* to do much better paying work because the requirements demanded "applications" and resumes were right out, and turning down a job was against the rules. And many of these jobs would actually pay about as much as or less than the payments themselves.

I've already spent years trying and failing to get work, however, so I'm not sure what it'd prove to keep making such attempts just for the sake of getting benefits that are supposed to assist me with the fact that I am unable to get or hold jobs.

* I say "technically qualified" because I tend to burn out on the job.



The government already gives special tax rates to a lot of companies, hence the wealthiest paying maybe a few hundred thousand dollars a year on taxes, or receiving tax returns despite making billions.

Your employer would need incentive to keep you as an employee, helping you get through your burn-out period to keep the tax breaks. You could try occupational therapy. That way you could keep your job. Minimum wage jobs can be a stepping stone to something better if you apply at a place you can advance.

Have you ever been on a program that requires an application quota in order to keep receiving benefits? The rules of such programs tend to mandate continued poverty. As in, not only is it difficult to find work, but the kind of work they want you to find will not necessarily improve things for you. If anything, you're more likely to end up in the same situation you were in previously, except now you have an exhausting job that will possibly overwhelm you.

I have had student loans and I've had to keep up with my job application histories and report them to my lender. What I am talking about would help a lot of people. Companies encouraged to hire them and not let them go, I believe, would help people. If you got a job at Mcdonalds and the managers were encouraged to help you keep that job by working with you and promoting you in a timely way, before you know it, you could be a manager making $50.000 a year. You might even become a partner and own several stores one day. That would be much better than existing on a government program. The chronically unemployed need those dreams right now. Suppose you don't like what Mcdonald's stands for, there's always Subway. These are jobs most anyone can get with chances to gain experience and manage one day.

Not smoking in buildings isn't enough for me. If someone smokes outside and then comes inside and interacts with me, that's a migraine already. I can't deal with the smoke that sticks to people's clothing, not to mention people smoking inside. So it is actually an issue even with that.

As for what I've applied for, anything that I've found that I'd be able to do the job, they've varied pretty widely.

But no, I physically cannot work a minimum wage job that involves working with customers. Because someone having smoked within the last 10 minutes being waiting in a line is enough that I'll be vomiting from pain. I am that sensitive. I have highly offended people who've never dreamed of smoking in their life by leaving places because I was near migraine when they couldn't smell any smoke on the clothing of the smoker. I require the ability to leave anywhere where smokers would be at literally any point in time. In order to live in my apartment I need an air purifier at the doorway as well as extra seals around the doorway and the heating system completely off and taped over. And this is in an apartment building where smoking isn't allowed indoors.

You DO realize that if that happened with even 30% of the workers(becoming ongoing managers making $50K and owning a mcdonalds), the cost of food would skyrocket, the licensees could go broke AND even if they somehow didn't, the new stores for the managers and licensees would saturate the market and put them out of business.

If money came as freely as you seem to think, don't you think they would throw more at the employees. Keeping employees is EASIER than hiring new ones. That is true of almost any business you could name.

There would be so many people with extra money in their pockets from management/partner salaries, they would be able to afford fast food everyday! This would help the industry expand!! ! Then there's people who will benefit from the experience, opening up restaurants of their own but that's far riskier venturing into something outside a franchise.

Subway or a deli would be your best bet.

2UKenkerl, companies don't want to keep employees longterm because they have to give them raises and more benefits like health insurance. They hire them on a part time basis for the same reasons. Government should discourage these practices because they lead to increased poverty and higher unemployment. Every time they hire new people, those people start with lower wages than someone who's been working there five years. Fast food restaurants are notorious for cutting hours and hiring a new person to replace an employee who's been there longer. It's really sad in this economy when people need more than that to get by.

Another thing they need are better training programs for new employees. I've worked at more than one fast food establishment and the training was virtually non existent which makes sense when you think about it. If you don't train an employee the chances are increased they won't work as long as someone who has thorough, proper training. That philosophy needs to be discouraged.

zer0netgain said:
"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.... "

No, it sounds like you are trying to put the cart before the horse. The "inability to get work" concept involves potential employers' weighted bias, such as only considering for a job opening, a person that already has presently a job somewhere else ("applications from unemployed people are not accepted, and they need not apply" frequent current business practice).

The brain freeze from the think tanks sounds like a continuing source of deception. So I'll go back to the politically incorrect word "handicapped", instead of here using the word "disabled" with its confusing double definitions with the ADAAA and the SSDI/SSI/SSA definitions. (a minor note, the regulations were generated after, and in order to actualize, the generating laws, not like your vice-versa polemic in the source of the concepts of entitlements).

For the word "disability", I will plagiarize the Court's summary (eligible means disabled, and ineligible means not disabled):

For another thing, in order to process the large number of SSDI claims, the SSA administers SSDI with the help of a five-step procedure that embodies a set of presumptions about disabilities, job availability, and their interrelation. The SSA asks:

Step One: Are you presently working? (If so, you are ineligible.) See 20 CFR § 404.1520(b) (1998).

Step Two: Do you have a “severe impairment,” i.e., one that “significantly limits” your ability to do basic work activities? (If not, you are ineligible.) See §404.1520(c).

Step Three: Does your impairment “mee[t] or equa[l]” an impairment on a specific (and fairly lengthy) SSA list? (If so, you are eligible without more.) See §§404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526.

Step Four: If your impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment, can you perform your “past relevant work?” (If so, you are ineligible.) See §404.1520(e).

Step Five: If your impairment does not meet or equal a listed impairment and you cannot perform your “past relevant work,” then can you perform other jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy? (If not, you are eligible.) See §§404.1520(f ), 404.1560(c).

Much of the prejudicial brain freeze seems to happen at Step 3, stopping the use of the prejudiced brain for steps 4 and 5, making such "incomprehensible" for many Archie Bunkers.

For the word "handicap":
(a) Handicapped individual means any person who—
(1) Has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities;
(2) Has a record of such an impairment; or
(3) Is regarded as having such an impairment.

A handicapped individual is not necessarily a "disabled individual" as determined by SSA's "Five Steps (including, but not exclusively of, "Appendix 1"). But, a "disabled individual" necessarily satisfies the definition of being a "handicapped individual". Handicapped individuals are protected from illegal discrimination, much as individuals over the age of 55 are protected from age discrimination. The next of "objectivism's" hostile rant includes "otherwise qualified" and "reasonable accommodation". Now prohibited, once "legal" prejudice holds that being "disabled" necessarily excludes being "otherwise qualified" and considered for "reasonable accommodation"; the law does not. Now prohibited, once "legal" prejudice also holds that being "otherwise qualified" and/or eligible for mandated consideration for "reasonable accommodation" excludes the possibility of being "disabled"; the law does not.

As far as that "Americans whine", I like the work of art: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/ ... nimgC.html And if you haven't been aware, disabled Americans are being left to die from lack of medical care (Arizona is topping the list), but a dead person seldom whines or complains for that matter, but they do have a tendency to stink after awhile, even in the Lands of Plenty. Certainly NOT, a dead person without documentation is not dead. The real physical world, sans philosophical human constructs to other humans, doesn't pay the least attention to the presence or absence of documentation.

It could be better said that the Flappers and then those born after 1968 are the ones of humanity that consumed irreplaceable resources the most quickly per person in the respective groups. I've never owned an internal combustion engine, but I'm just a member of a civilization that exploited fuels to the hilt, and still does and still will until combustion is impossible. The alternatives have all been tried and forsaken (a "solar train" was tried a couple hundred years ago), and Peter Farb reexamined the anthropological and cultural aspects of calories-in to calories-out per person per surface area, and it makes "balance" sound like a prediction of future mass reductions in human population.

zer0netgain said:
"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."

Incomplete and imperfect sentences tend to obfuscate prejudices. Do dishonest people want to make do only with subsistence level survival? Why not say being on disability is voluntary, like income taxes are "voluntary"? Don't dishonest people want an even more independent life, like one not burdened by concepts called "honesty"? Some factors of insanity are people who believe they are totally independent of all laws, both humanity's and physic's. How about paying for the future cake by contract, and then eating the cake in the future by contract, without all the Ayn Rand rant about the virtues of selfishness before the payment, and all the undue dependency rant hiding the embezzlements after the payment has been paid in and now the time for the benefits to be paid out on all the Social Contracts? If EVERYONE must pull their own weight, what are the benefits of any Civilization if the return is less than survival, and any possible excess goes only to selfishness (specialization takes tons of energy). It really makes sense to empty the storage granaries for the satisfaction of selfishness. The notion of insurance is undoubtedly incomprehensible, as is breast feeding to non-mammals. Why do wealthy people want to be dependent on workers, instead of just doing whatever for themselves while saving the pieces of paper contracts for decorations of independence from humanity?

zer0netgain said: "I admit that I'm dark and cynical, and the Baby Boomers just keep giving me reason to be so."
Maybe you better not read "A Reading of The Future" by Hochenedel at http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/future.html Does Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" take it out of context? Then, Cohen's knows that "Everybody Knows".

Since inevitable prejudice is always present in the observer, I give the prejudice the cause of the paradox of much of my life being regarded as my being one amongst the characters in the works of Dostoevsky, and his versions of various iurodivyi. If Uncle GodBucks allows me my share of the family fortune, I would might more closely match the central character in the book "The Idiot", but at least that would be further from the genius of "the devil pretending to be good pretending to be evil".

By the way, in the 1980's, the EEOC took the fact that someone who was looking for work was looking, was proof that that someone didn't even consider themselves to be disabled or handicapped. Pretend hardscrabble cowboy Baby Boomers will probably offer to lead everyone to shrug off humanity again and again, just like in "Atlas Shrugged". The 2nd law stopped Atlas too, and arrogant but still sheepish denial didn't help, as it never will.

Tadzio

"Siger played with the dismal doctrine of eternal recurrence: since (he argued) all earthly events are ultimately determined by stellar combinations, and the number of these possible combinations is finite, each combination must be exactly repeated again and again in an infinity of time, and must bring in its train the same effects as before; 'the same species' will return, 'the same opinions, laws, religions.'" Will Durant (1935)

Wow, a very well-written and thoughtful response. Thanks.

Well, I didn't want to muddy the water by digressing into side issues, but many "dishonest" people who are CHOOSING to use disability to support themselves when they could go out and work often DO "work" or some other thing where they are getting pay under the table that is never reported, but I didn't want to imply that because some do this means all are doing this.

Just as a welfare mom can make good money by just popping out kids she does a crappy job raising because the welfare system will pay her X in benefits per child...creating an incentive to be a baby maker because it's easier to live of your kids' benefits than go out and support yourself.

Hi zer0netgain,

The phrase "baby boom" is a strange phrase. I always wondered how, when the previous average family had 12 children, and then the next generation average family only had 2 children, the "2 children" family had the "baby boom". A growing population supports things associated with large trust funds (you can't buy tomorrow's bread, you can only buy a promissory note for "to be delivered in the future" presently non-existant bread). This once was an argument against birth-control also, but the same groups that supported, and made this argument, suddenly decided the law of depreciating returns only applied to other people, not them, and came up with the welfare-mother-cadillac-queen propaganda slogan. A strange "joke" website is presently representing that the phrase "baby boom" was born in 1941, and means "an increase in birthrate, which is a good thing; note that the baby boom actually started before World War II, contrary to what textbooks teach," with a return about-face of: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best ... tive_Words

Most of the citations seem to be incorrect from just from a cursory search with Ngrams, with "baby boom" being noted as: http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?cont ... moothing=3
with a "Life Magazine" paired entry for Vol. 11, No. 22, Dec. 1, 1941, page 73, "BOOM IN BABIES: IN 1941 THEY ARE FIGHTING A BIRTH RATE WAR WITH HITLER" (a month earlier "baby boom" was for Rhinoceros parents in Chicago's Zoo). The 1941 date seems to be a paired word coincidence, as the "baby boom" phrase is counted on books-dot-google with 46 results between Jan. 1, 1880 - Dec. 31, 1910 also. And in 1914, "every day makes it more apparent that the Baby Boom has become very tired." And "Baby Boom" again in "Life Magazine" on Sep 9, 1940, in a letter heading. So "Where's the beef"?:
http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?cont ... moothing=3
In 1935, President Gay "started a baby boom by voicing fears of what speculators might do if easy money were continually pressed on them." Those poor speculators always get it somehow!! !

What could be more important to a person than their health? "Their good heath with disability payments!! !"
Something like that was an exchange in the TV movie "The Insurance Man" (1986) between a concerned doctor and a skeptical/hostile nurse/administrator. Since I have a skin rash from anti-epileptic pharmaceuticals or tuberous sclerosis or something with even lower probabilities, living Kafka is different. The writer also wrote "Kafka's Dick", so the flip-flop with the Baby-Boomers might be there too with actuarial returns that are held to be right to be defaulted, like in the asbestos industry of laziness past the street executions witnessed by Old Franz. What is an American Promise worth to a tea bagger?

Tadzio

This is a myth perpetuated for political reasons to push for "welfare reform" that ultimately made things harder for people who do legitimately need assistance.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1302

As far as it goes, I have actually known women who were on welfare with children. I didn't know any who wanted more kids, and the rules the system operates under actually made it very difficult for them to find work or get an education.

Also, raising two children (the average is 1.9 children for families on welfare) practically is a full time job on its own.

Well, as the economy gets worse it gets harder and harder for people who could theoretically work but simply cannot get hired due to even a mild disability that impairs their functioning. Most autistic people probably fall under this category. Are you suggesting these people shoot themselves in the head and stop being such a burden on the economy? Or you just don't care as long as you're all set for yourself?

In the past at least extended family would take people in can't make it on their own. These days extended families don't think they have any social responsibility due to the ugly plague of "rugged individualism" that has spread like a cancer in this country.

No. What I'm saying is that we're seeing a flood of people push for disability benefits who, under different economic circumstances, would never have done so before. Not because nobody would hire them BECAUSE OF THEIR DISABILITY, but solely because of the state of the economy.

Every night I'm seeing these ads for companies that want to help people with any number of "medical conditions" apply for and get "thousands of dollars" in monthly disability assistance. You know they'd not be advertising if they weren't making money off this paper mill they are running.

Disability benefits were meant for those select few who absolutely could not work. Now, there are pressures (and attitudes) that if you can come up with a legalistic excuse for why you can't work (sic....more like why you are currently unemployed), you should be entitled to receive benefits for that. These are people who can work but can't find work...that's not really the same thing as someone who nobody would hire...even in a good economy.

If you have AS and are so dysfunctional that you can't hold a job because your symptoms get in the way or they get in the way enough that no employer wants to accommodate for them, that is one thing. If you have AS, can and have worked, but now you're getting older and because of a crappy economy you and everyone else in your age group is struggling to obtain and keep employment, exploiting the fact that you have AS to try and go on disability is morally questionable at the very least. Disability was not intended to support you just because there is a bad economy going on. It's hard on everyone.

I wish I could find a YouTube clip of the TV ad...I find it obnoxious.

CAN'T WORK? HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THESE HEALTH CONDITIONS? CALL US TO APPLY FOR YOUR SHARE OF THOUSANDS IN GOVERNMENT MONEY!

Yes, disability is not intended to be used as a form of unemployment benefits, but I'm not going to harshly judge someone for going that route if the alternative is losing the roof over their head and living on the street. Not everyone has friends or relatives that would be willing to take them in. A lot of people are simply f*****g screwed.

Also, higher competition for jobs in a bad economy means those with disabilities might be more negatively effected than others without any disability, even if they could theoretically find work in a good economy with less competition. I can see how someone with AS might repeatedly get the shaft in a high competition situation simply for having an unusual tone of voice in an interview. It's far less clear cut than you make it out to be, that all of these people are simply using their disability to "scam" the system.

Here is the original CBO report. It explains a lot.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc116 ... _Brief.pdf

You have a simplistic way of looking at things! Let's just print up $330,000,000,000,000,000USD, and give everyone a billion dollars! VIOLA! EVERYONE will be a billionare and can just lay back and RELAX! After all, if things worked like you seem to think, THAT would make it PARADISE! You know, they DID do that in Germany once! They did that in some other areas too! To a lesser degree, they tried it in the US! What would once have been considered RICH is now considered POVERTY level in the US! Do you realize that $12000(poverty level last I knew) was enough to buy like 3 nice houses in the 1930s? Yeah, there IS a word for your theory. it is called INFLATION!

As for the training, in most restaurants, they expect the people to know. In some restaurants, such as mcdonalds, they ARE supposed to train the food preparers. They have changed the cash registers to try to make that simpler for people that know nothing.