Why NOT cut ENTITLEMENTS to the disabled?

[MannyGoldstein]

As sensible adults know, we Democrats make decisions based, first and foremost, on their electoral repercussions.

Let's be honest: elections are won with money, not unicorn flatuses. Money from rich people who make big political contributions, who fund SuperPACs, who pay for "speeches", and who give Wall Street jobs to the children of important politicians. These people want more money, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's what makes America great. People on SSDI just don't have the money to matter. Just keepin' it real, here. Sorry, Libs, if that puts your nose out of joint. They've chosen a life of disability instead of success, and their poor decisions have made them powerless. I'd like to feel bad for them, but I'm too hard-nosed.

Many don't even care enough to get out of their hospital beds and pull out their life-support stuff to vote!

So we cut cash handouts to the disabled so we can keep taxes ultra-low on the important people. It's not like people can actually live on the $1,100 per month that these people get, it must be on top of their inheritances and investment income. So maybe they'll have to skip a lobster tail sometimes if we cut them back a little. And the price of gas is way down, so it's now more affordable to sleep in their cars with the engine turned on for warmth.

But we'll win elections! Yay! Just like we have been. Well sometimes we do. I think if we @#$& more powerless people we'll win more elections, no?

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[Hoyt]

1. I agree payment rates are too low, but sounds like Obama is trading physical exams in 20 more states

for continuation of disability payments which would otherwise have to be cut because Disability fund is depleted to point automatic cuts are about to kick in.

For his efforts to continue payments at the current level to recipients, Obama has to take criticism from people who don't care about the truth.

Read the part about Disability:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/us/politics/congress-and-white-house-near-deal-on-budget.html

[merrily]

5. Let's see....

....officials briefed on the negotiations said the emerging accord would increase spending by $80 billion, not including emergency war funding, over two years above the previously agreed-upon budget caps.

Those increases would be offset by cuts in spending on Medicare and Social Security disability benefits, as well as savings or revenue from an array of other programs, including changes to the nation’s strategic petroleum reserves.

Aside from needy infants, do we even have a more vulnerable population than the disabled?

Pete Peterson is probably toasting to this deal as I type.

BTW, anyone know how many months/years, how many yards of red tape and how many medical reports it takes to become a recipient of Social Security Disability to begin with?

Just how effed up are this country's priorities going to get before enough is really enough?

[Hoyt]

7. Disability will be cut 20% in 2016 without this additional funds, which it appears accord will

do. Is there a better way, sure with time and a different Congress.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. So maybe the President could get off his gilded backside

and speak to the American People. Call Republicans liars like he called Elizabeth Warren a liar on the TPP.

But as we know... TPP important, the disabled are meh.

[ladyVet]

82. I'm with you, Manny.

People here excuse so much that this President does, just because... I don't know why.

But hey, we need to fund those wars for democracy, eh? Somebody has to pay, and it can't be those rich people who have suffered so much already. sob

[Punkingal]

83. +1000

[Fast Walker 52]

100. but... but... but... centrism!

[Fearless]

105. K&r!

[erronis]

106. Hey - that might cause the Nobel committee to withdraw that unearned piece of metal

I think BO has done pretty well given the corporate-funded obstinancy since day 1.

However I don't think he has done a good job of letting the world know why he couldn't really earn that medal. From day 1 there should have been a press release (multi-media) that described what was trying to be achieved, and the forces aligned against it.

As far as calling a whitey a whitey and a spade a spade, he should have left that to the stellar media. Of course we all know that anything printed or broadcast is now pure bunkum. Thanks to SNL and other comics, the public can have a good laugh and some good info.

[Enthusiast]

109. +100%!

[merrily]

10. I am so sick of the lie that whatever has happened is the best that could possibly have happened.

[BuelahWitch]

12. Me too! n/t

[GoneFishin]

15. Me too. The only issue on which he has spent any political capital is TPP. That right there tells

you where his real priorities lie. What the hell are the disabled going to do for him or the rest of the corporatists, right?

[840high]

57. Yep +1

[Art_from_Ark]

65. I have a feeling we'll be treated to the same song and dance

if Bernie doesn't get in the White House

[merrily]

66. Oh, then it would be the Variety Hour all day long. Multiple songs, dances and comedy acts.

[Art_from_Ark]

70. I can imagine the comedy acts would include such skits as

"We're fighting for you-- really, we are"
"A Social Security decrease is actually an increase"
"You should be thankful we're sending your job to Malaysia"

Maybe they can resurrect Sonny Bono to be the host.

[merrily]

74. LOL, but...why Bono?

[Art_from_Ark]

117. Bono turned into a bigtime conservative

He represented Palm Springs for a while in Congress.

And of course, he had his own variety show in the '60s and '70s.

[neverforget]

118. It's the Centrist way

[Keefer]

34. I applied for SSDI in June of 2013.

Got my first check in November of the same year which included three months retroactive payments.

I didn't have an attorney. I just submitted all the forms to my cardiologist and he filled them out. No red tape here.

I got my Medicare card in the mail a few weeks ago after the required two year waiting period. I turned down part B because I get all my healthcare from the VA.

Easy peasy.

[merrily]

64. Not sure what your point is. If it is that getting SSDI is that fast and easy for everyone, you're

mistaken. And heaven forbid you need to appeal.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. It Sure Wasn't That Fast For My Wife!

Took WAY(!) more than 3 months. There was no appeal and she got it on the first shot, but it sure didn't take just 3 months.

[merrily]

77. Thanks for the confirmation. Maybe the poster had some other point?

[Keefer]

80. You asked about the red tape involved.

I related my experience.

It was not meant to imply that everyone has the same simple process as I did, it was simply my experience.

Sorry if you got the wrong impression.

[Quackers]

85. You mentioned the VA, so I assume you're a Veteran.

What most people don't know is that they fast track SSDI claims for Veterans, myself included. They asked me during the phone interview if I was a Veteran and told me that it will be fast tracked. I did get denied twice and went before a judge who approved it. Even with all these extra steps, I received my first check 9 months after first applying. That's lightning fast! Most people though will wait 2 years to receive their first decision letter.

[Keefer]

89. I was never asked

about military service during my application process. Why should that matter? None of my disabilities are service-related.

[Quackers]

91. They ask you because it goes toward your capability assessment.

Just like you're supposed to disclose all job types you've held. I'm surprised they didn't ask you. Maybe they already had that info in your file due to your SS number. For reference, I am in Ohio and I was asked.

[Keefer]

92. It never came up.

I was in Pa. when I applied. None of my work history came up either. They did ask me if I was currently working, I said no because of doctor's orders. My cardiologist advised me while I was still in the hospital to never work again.

Maybe one key to my quick approval was due to the fact I didn't volunteer anything that wasn't asked for. I answered every question honestly and thoroughly, but like I said, I never offered more information besides what they asked for.

[haele]

96. Nope, it was because the judge who had the first approval had a soft spot for heart problems.

Or you were very, very lucky with the caseworker assigned to you to help you fill out your paperwork. Only 20% of the people who initially apply for SSDI get approved.
My spouse has not been able to work since 2002, has been considered fully disabled since then by all his doctors (he sees five doctors and two therapists regularly just to be able to function).

It still took him four years and three judgments to finally get approved for SSDI.

An SSDI case isn't approved by merit of claim, or on how well one's paperwork is filled out, it is approved by a judge who looks over the written medical argument for approval from your doctor(s) and listens to your representative (caseworker or lawyer) in court - if you have one. Then the judge decides whether or not you can actually work or if your disability meets the level where you will need government support to continue living. The judge doesn't listen to you, the applicant. Your opinion is subjective.
It's not like SS survivor's benefits or the SS retirement insurance program. The philosophy is that you're applying for early Social Security because you can't take care of yourself, not if you can't work. "Can't work again" is not an objective measurement for most disabilities - even if looking at congestive heart failure, blindness or limb failure. You could always use a wheelchair and go to work a desk job. You could always find a "work at home" job using your personal computer where you set your own hours part-time.
There are all sorts of therapies and prosthetic or supporting devices that can augment the capabilities you do have so you could work - and most health insurance companies will pay for them; if you don't have health insurance that will, companies will work with "low/no income" people to supply them to you from charitable donations.
Whether or no there are jobs for you that you can work is not the point - it's whether or not you can competently do day-to-day activities such as feed yourself, take your meds, or keep yourself clean.

Again, when you see the questions, the whole focus of the SSDI application is whether or not you can take care of yourself, or if you need help to be able to function on a day-to-day basis.

There have been people with cancer, neuro-degeneration diseases, and organ failure who died waiting years for approval of their claim, who had been told by their doctors they couldn't work again when they first applied. A former co-worker of mine died in 2010 waiting on his fifth year as his body became more and more eaten by severe diabetes and the complications from that - couldn't work, on Medical with limited services, had two amputations, congestive heart failure, and the second stroke in three years finally did him in - and they had been holding up his SSDI for five years, because he was depending on the overworked Medical caseworker to push his claim through court.
He refused to get a lawyer even after he was told by pretty near everyone (even the caseworker) that he should, because he didn't want to pay the 20% off the initial award just so he would get SSDI, and be able to get better medical help than the emergency room or local free clinic.

And then there are people who are just chronically sick and tired after years of hard physical labor, who could possibly work with "re-training" (and if there were physically easier jobs available), who get their applications approved almost immediately after they hire a lawyer who specializes in SSDI claims and can walk an application through the court and get approval - because the lawyer knows the arguments to make, no matter how injured or disabled the person actually is.

You were lucky.

Haele

[Keefer]

97. Whatever you ascribe to it,

I realize I was in the minority when I got approved. I never meant to imply anything differently.

I have 4 separately-diagnosed heart problems, each one diagnosed at different points in my life. I also have epilepsy, but haven't had a seizure in almost twenty years. I am still taking Dilantin, and will for the rest of my life. After surviving six heart bypasses due to high cholesterol, I went back to work. I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure, and cardiomyopathy. The biggest setback was being diagnosed with atrial flutter, which is when I had a defibrillator/pacemaker implanted. That is when I was told I would be risking my life by going back to work. I am now taking 14 different medications daily, and that will continue for the rest of my life.

Most of it, even the Epilepsy, is genetic. The male side of my family has had cardio problems and a history of aortic aneurysms for at least the last four generations.

Again, I'm sorry if left the wrong impression.

[BuelahWitch]

86. Mine came quickly also

But the SSA expects my cancer to do me in within 5 years, so may have had something to do with it.
I also had experienced social workers helping me with the paperwork. I know other people are not so lucky, and have had their applications denied for one reason or another.
I can only hope when I have to re-apply that I still "look sick" so they don't take my benefits away.

[Keefer]

90. There is a man across the street from me

who has only one leg. The other will be taken within the next year. He has been waiting over three years to get disability.

[BuelahWitch]

93. That is terrible

I don't know how they pick and choose. Like I say, according to their website, I will be gone soon, not a big payout. That may be it.

[Fairgo]

98. I don't know why all those poor people are complaining about being hungry

I just ate.

[Keefer]

99. Again...

My experience with SSDI is in no way meant to be taken as my thoughts on how others are treated. It was my experience. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope you had a good meal.

[Fairgo]

101. I can appreciate that

But in the context of the discussion it appeared to be counter evidence to the position taken, that SSDI and SSI are not easy to get, and those in need suffer in the interim. Easy Peasy is not the general experience. Perhaps you could illucidates your experience in contrast to my friend, who lost everything before he saw a dime. That would help to connect your comment to the thread. I am genuinely interested in understand the difference.

[Keefer]

103. I would but

I do not know your friend. My story was about MY experience. For me, it was "easy peasy". For others, not so much. I understand that. I also understand there is a small percentage of cases that do get approved the first time and without hassle. I also understand I was probably in that small percentage. That is not my fault, nor am I gloating about it.

Others DO suffer while waiting. I am not denying that. I did not. I got lucky, but again, that wasn't my fault.

Sorry about your friend.

[merrily]

2. So few have the profile in courage needed to run on ending life for the needy "as we know it."

Turns out that the allegedly most electable Democrats are not very electable. 2010 and 2014 = historically bad losses for (snort) electable Democrats.

Most electable President of any Party in US history? The guy responsible for the New Deals.

[wilsonbooks]

3. It is a very rational decision on his part.

It is not like he will ever have to depend on SSDI or to make a choice between buying medicine or eating.

[BuelahWitch]

4. Yeah, make those disabled bums prove it!

Otherwise they can get a job like everybody else!
In case people think I'm serious...

PS. for those who think this is "reasonable," these exams are used to keep people OFF SSDI. I would guess this also means those of us who have to be "re-approved" every so often.

[merrily]

6. I have no problem with people having to prove disability in order to receive disability benefits.

However, those who are receiving Social Security Disability benefits have already proven their disability, or they would not be recipients of SSDI to begin with. This is bs.

[yeoman6987]

11. Considering it happens in 30 states already

And not a peep that's is negative why the problem with 20 other states getting it?

[merrily]

13. LOL! you probably want to think about that question a little longer, esp. in light of Reply 5.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. They will use it as a way to deny people SSDI.

[Fuddnik]

56. Florida is one of the 30 you soeak of.

It takes years of exams, reviews, and appeals to collect on an obvious disability.

It seems like you have a disability attorney's office on every corner.

[BlueJazz]

9. Yes, I'm getting a little tired of these freeloaders myself. I think they would be useful maybe..

....doing the call-center thing 12-14 hours a day. At least we wouldn't feel like suckers for making their lives bearable.

[passiveporcupine]

71. you forgot "at minimum wage"

[Quackers]

87. Let's not get crazy here! Minimum wage is a little too much for disabled people.

just in case.

[valerief]

14. The 99% can stand to lose some weight anyway. We can't destroy the planet by letting

the rich people NOT get richer. That would be a mortal sin.

[gordianot]

16. The infants, toddlers and parents I work with in my retirement job do feel so entitled.

But those deaf infants are so blasted cute and parents are so desperate for help I just cannot say "NO". Oh yes I get paid by a Federal Program but end up spending more than I make. This proposal would make some financial sense for my retirement income.

[geek tragedy]

17. It's as if Republicans and not Democrats control Congress. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Obviously, our strategy is working!

Er, wait...

Oh! Must be the failt of the enormous-yet-inconsequential fringe-left that sits out elections. That's it.

Regards,

TWM

[geek tragedy]

20. Maybe Obama should threaten a default on the debt unless

Republicans meet all of his demands.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Maybe we should negotiate with hostage takers?

Good thinking.

[geek tragedy]

24. Maybe we should read Article I of the constitution nt

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Maybe we should read Dick and Jane

One of the few times I was proud of Clinton is when Gingrich and Company pulled a hostage taking, and Clinton got up on a podium and let 'em have it.

[geek tragedy]

27. That Ted Cruz has really accomplished a lot for

Republicans, hasn't he?

He is right--all compromise is proof of moral decay.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. How did we do in the last elections?

That would be checkmate, my good geek.

[geek tragedy]

37. Yes, when you are reduced to claiming that Ted Cruz

is the reason Republicans took over the Senate, you've lost not only the argument, but any pretense of living in the real world.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. You asked how things worked out for the Republicans

I answered with the most salient answer.

Sorry if your question went off in your hand.

[geek tragedy]

42. No, that was not my question.

My question was what Ted Cruz accomplished, not what the Republican Party accomplished.

You responded by giving Ted Cruz full credit for the Republican victory in 2014.

And that pretty much says everything that needs to be said.

[merrily]

29. Who was in control of Congress in January 2009, when Obama gave an interview to WAPO,

promising to "reform" entitlements?

[geek tragedy]

33. What changes to entitlement programs

occurred when Democrats controlled Congress?

[MannyGoldstein]

35. So Obama failed on purpose?

Did he also make 82% of the Bush tax cuts permanent on purpose? Or was that a true fail?

[geek tragedy]

40. Fallacy: Loaded question. Please rephrase.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Your discomfort with the answer

Doesn't make the question bad.

[geek tragedy]

45. No, your question carried an embedded assumption that has

not been proven.

Logic.

[merrily]

44. Non sequitur. However, I will answer anyway.

The very first budget that Obama sent to Congress included cuts to fuel subsidies.

As far as your non sequitur, if the goal of a Democrat is to "reform" entitlements, it's much better for him and the Dem Party to effect that via a Republican Congress. Boehner and Canto knew that, which is probably why they refused to take the bait, no matter how many times Obama offered them cuts to entitlements.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/


The idea that he was playing 13 dimensional chess with them and winning, which so many on DU tried to peddle, was always bullshit. The only losers in that game of 13th dimensional chess were Democrats who bought that it was all about the bad Republicans and only the bad Republicans.

[geek tragedy]

51. So now you're complaining Obama didn't do anything

on entitlements back in 2009.

And that this relatively modest change was the ultimate goal of his presidency.

Priceless.

[merrily]

53. I did not post anything like what your straw people post claims. Please pity the straw people.

They work so hard at DU.

[geek tragedy]

55. You realize that there won't be any more entitlement legislation

until 2017, right?

8 years of Obama, 6 years of Republicans controlling the House, 2 years of Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, and this is it.

Why do you suppose it wasn't worse?

[merrily]

59. And now we move the goal post to no more legislation until 2017.

I already said one reason why it wasn't worse. Boehner would not take the bait, not while there was a Democratic President, anyway. See Reply 47.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Because Republicans reneged on the deal they made with Obama

Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 06:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Because the cuts weren't deep enough.

[cascadiance]

18. I guess we have to protect those getting death benefits from SSDI...

... at least not make it a point where there are means to take past benefits away from earlier recipients of those benefits, as it might mean that the new Speaker of the House will have to pay back some of his tax benefits that helped fund his college career!

[merrily]

31. In certain parts of the country, cuts to fuel subsidies may reduce both the elderly population and

the disabled population. So, there's hope.

[Broward]

23. Bipartisanship is alive and well in Washington.

[passiveporcupine]

25. I've been doing some research on this

This new "flat benefit" only affects new applicants, not people already on disability.

It's still going to hurt some people very badly (as it would have for me, if it had been in affect when I applied). It pays the same to everyone (100% poverty level), regardless of what their working income level was; so, many who were making low incomes before disability will likely get an increase, while those making a better income will end up losing a lot.

Here is what I found on Heritage.org site. Check out the link if you need more info.

The average SSDI benefit for 2015 is $1,019 across all beneficiaries, and $1,165 among disabled workers.[9] The average spousal benefit is $317, and the average child benefit is $350. Under a flat benefit structure, all disabled workers would receive $981, and the ratio of worker benefits to spouse and child benefits would remain constant, resulting in a flat $267 spouse benefit and a flat $295 child benefit.

Although a flat benefit would significantly alter the existing benefit structure, increasing benefits for some and reducing benefits for others, a flat benefit would better represent the original purpose of the program: Social Security Disability Insurance is a poverty-prevention program, not an income-replacement program. Income replacement should be left to private insurance, which typically offers more generous coverage and higher benefits than SSDI.[10] Arguably, individuals who would receive less under a flat SSDI benefit are the ones most able to purchase private DI coverage to supplement SSDI.

A flat, poverty-level benefit ($11,772 in 2015) for new SSDI awards would reduce SSDI costs by $168 billion over the first 10 years.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/improving-social-security-disability-insurance-with-a-flat-benefit

So this may end up actually helping many new recipients (most people on disability were low income), but it still only pays 100% poverty level to anyone who needs it. You can not live on poverty level income, especially if you are single (at least not where I live).

The biggest problem I have with this flat plan, or even the current one, is that they just assume people can live on 100% poverty wages, and you really cannot. We need to raise the poverty level to a more realistic level. Especially in this time of lower wages and so many not having savings or retirement funds to fall back on.

[liberal_at_heart]

38. Are you serious? You are defending this as a poverty prevention program?

My husband worked as an engineer and paid into SS and also had a supplemental disability plan with his work. SSDI is SS for the disabled which means they paid into it just like workers who retire and receive SS. You have to have worked to receive SSDI and the amount you get is based on work history. Those who have not worked and have not paid into the program get SSI. SSI is what is meant to keep the disabled out of poverty, not that they actually pay SSI recipients enough to keep them out of poverty. My husband paid into SSDI. It is his money. Neither SS nor SSDI should be means tested. This whole thing is disgusting and unforgivable. We are talking about taking money away from disabled people so we can increase military spending. There is nothing acceptable about this.

http://www.disabilitybenefitscenter.org/disability_benefits.shtml

[passiveporcupine]

41. I'm not defending this

that is Heritage that said that.

I never thought it was designed to prevent poverty. I always thought it was designed to keep people from living in poverty when they worked all their lives. Apparently that's not the way some people view it.

And I agree on the taking from the disabled to inflate our military budget...that's exactly why it is happening. The republican war hawks are restless.

Edited to add...I can see why you thought I was defending it, when I said the biggest problem I had was the poverty level...I didn't mean I don't have a problem with means testing it, I meant our poverty level sucks and regardless of how you get there, Americans should never have to live on current poverty level wages...yet too many do. And the only benefit to the flat tax (which does not justify it) is that many people on disibility today do not even get poverty level payments.

What this country really needs is a guaranteed livable income for everyone like other wise socialist countries have.

[liberal_at_heart]

46. You are absolutely right about the poverty level and the guaranteed living income.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. Who needs "votes" when you can BUY the office?

[merrily]

36. You sound like Rosenberg, who went from the DLC to found the New Democrat Network.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7796

Well, except that you are being sarcastic and he was not.

[mountain grammy]

32. These decisions were made by voters, or non voters as the case may be,

in the 2014 midterm elections.

[merrily]

47. Not really. Long game.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/11/news/economy/obama_heating_cuts/

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obama-grand-bargain/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html

ETA: multiple cuts to SNAP as well.

[liberal_at_heart]

52. I just love the ignore button. Bye.

[merrily]

68. FWIW, I like mountain grammy. But a poster's gotta do what a poster's gotta do. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Thank you for being a Very Serious Person

Only a Very Serious Person can Make The Hard Choices profoundly affecting other people.

[Lyric]

49. Did you get lost and wander out of Loonyland again?

Back to GD-P with thee. There's a reason so many of us have that forum trashed, and it is to avoid passive-aggressive crap like this.

[cstanleytech]

54. For a good number its well below 1,100 and more like 800 range.

[liberal_at_heart]

58. I hope to God this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I can't believe how little

fuss people made when WIC and food stamps was cut during the last budget deal. Just how bad does it have to get before we fight back? They are going to continue to cut programs every single time it is time to negotiate a budget deal. What the hell will we be left with in another 5 years?

[840high]

61. The only way I know how

to fight back is in the voting booth.

[liberal_at_heart]

63. I hope it is that easy, but I don't think it will be. The Labor Movement, The Civil Rights Movement,

The Suffrage Movement all had to be willing to commit civil disobedience in order to win their rights.

[Fuddnik]

62. It's not like they could raise the cap or anything!

But, their owners would have a fit with that.

Or maybe cut subsidies to banks, the military budget, oil companies........

[passiveporcupine]

67. Raise the cap? They want to lower it.

Again, from the Heritage.org link I posted above, this is on the new "flat benefit" concept that they are trying to cram into this budget deal for DDSI and Medicare.

A reduction in the payroll tax cap would help offset the increased progressivity of a flat benefit by limiting the total amount of payroll taxes for middle-income to upper-income earners.[14] Over time, as a flat benefit and other SSDI reforms improve the solvency of the program, any savings should be used to reduce the payroll tax cap at its current level of $118,500 to something closer to between one and two times the median wage. If individuals receive nothing in return for higher SSDI taxes, there should be a lower limit on effective premiums.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/10/improving-social-security-disability-insurance-with-a-flat-benefit

Yay!...let's just get flat taxes for everyone. We don't need no stinkin' progressivity in this great country of Amerka!

[DhhD]

115. Reduction in the payroll tax cap was already given to Republicans in early Obama Administration

and then returned to where it is now. Obama made a campaign promise on removing the Bush Tax Cuts to the Old Progressive Democratic Party. The New Way knew. Once elected, Obama began to speak of himself as a New Democrat. He threw away his Old shoes and walked The New Way. I am guessing that the New Way Democrats want to make more cuts permanent.

[merrily]

69. MANY possible solutions, but please see Reply 10. nt

[Truprogressive85]

72. #facts

If Democrats agree to any cut 2016 is already over for the party

[bobGandolf]

73. Third Way Manny,

Oh, the wonderful open letter you posted brings back memories of Ronald Reagan.
Let's go back in time.

[merrily]

75. Sadly,Third Way Democrats make going back in time re: Reagan unnecessary.

[maxrandb]

78. I'm sorry

But you can't "effing" sit back and turn the "effing" "gubmint" over to the ass-pickle Tea-Bagging asshats, who not only control both houses of Congress, but also 70 "EFFING" GOD DAMN PERCENT OF STATE HOUSES, PLUS the ability to redraw "effing" Districts for a "effing" generation...and then piss and moan about not being able to get a better "effing" deal out of them.

Let's not fucking forget that if they had their way, they'd round up the disabled and poor and ship them off to fucking debtors prison.

You can post little smart ass bullshit about the state of affairs, or you could realize that THIS IS WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET THE INMATES RUN THE ASYLUM.

Until we remove the Tea-Bagging asshats from office...THIS IS WHAT WE FUCKING GET

Don't you understand that?

[jeff47]

95. Do you understand that problem exists because we ran

on a platform of "we won't hurt you as badly!"?

Gee, I wonder why all those "Hope and Change" voters didn't respond positively to that.

[Vinca]

79. We should be grateful they aren't suggesting using the disabled for target practice.

Poor and needy people do not matter in this country. They are powerless and easy pickings for the politicians seeking loot for their campaign coffers. Vote as if their lives depended on it because they do.

[BuelahWitch]

84. Don't give them any ideas...n/t

[Octafish]

81. Fast Track this idea!

Don't want to stop the money flow.

Jeff St. Clair explains in "The Man Who Bought the Clintons: the Political Business of Terry McAuliffe"

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/the-man-who-bought-the-clintons-the-political-business-of-terry-mcauliffe/

[Pisces]

88. Why not get your facts straight before doling out garbage???

[Zorra]

94. Yes! It's the neoliberal "Third Way". The lesser of two evils solution. It maintains a more

competitive labor supply, saves money for the filthy rich, and it is more humane than the Republican solution, which is "let them die".

Cutting critical funding for the poor, the disabled, the desperate, and the elderly makes perfect sense.

See? The system works!

[KamaAina]

102. $1,100 per month?

Try $864 (SSI: Supplemental Security Income).

[Demeter]

104. Manny, it's $733/month, not $1,100

for my adult developmentally disabled daughter. AND the State of Michigan used to give her $200/month for food. That will be cut next month to $100.

And my daughter votes! She just doesn't vote for these secretive legislative aides (nobody did).

[blondie58]

107. I don't think of Then as entitlements.

I think of Them as Benefits i HAVE EARNED!
I would have liked to Continue Working as a Letter carrier. But I came Down with Multiple sclerosis. I am proud that I worked twelve years after my dx. But I couldn't handle the heat or the cold and the time came that I had to leave.

[Skittles]

110. benefits you have earned actually does = entitlements

but that word has a kind of loftiness to it, because it is often used in the context of, say, snotty rich folk who think they are entitled to our money

kudos to you for your work ethic, blondie58 - that is very admirable

[blondie58]

111. Thank you, Skittles

Yeah You're right!
I don't like how the righties talk down about it Though.
Retiring Has Been Great! My stress Level is 0, When i was at the P.O. It was Through The roof.

[Skittles]

112. gawd, I dream of retirement

I have been working full-time for 40 years

(do you hear that, repuke trolls? FORTY YEARS)

[Dont call me Shirley]

108. Yup Manny. I really made an informed choice to get deadly sick with lupus so I could live in poverty

so I could get ridiculed and accused of being a lazy mooches for the rest of my life. I really enjoy begging for healthcare, dental care and eye care. It's so fulfilling.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE (dental, eye and wholistic too) FOR ALL!!!!!!!

Anything other than that is inhumane!

[allan01]

113. quit calling them intitlements . we pay into that shit and for every cut for ss the

congeress should suffer too. what did we learn from grece . a friend of mine told me that a # of years ago, the state of n.y got rid of all its social programs . there were more problems than they could handle and it was more expensive to put the social programs back into place . no , i dont have any links . reaserch it urself please.

[jwirr]

114. When America thinks disabled they think about a 60 year

old worker who is injured in some unrelated way and can no longer do their work.

But there is a whole lot more to SSDI than that. Children who are born disabled also grow up to get SSDI when they are 18 years old and SSA when their parents retire. Many of these children will never be able to vote because they are severely disabled like my daughter who needs one to one total care 24/7.

When our leaders cut this program they do not even think about these children. They really do not care what happens to them. You are right the rich need more money so they can feel good about themselves.

[Depaysement]

116. Spot on

Who do these special needs people think they are anyway?

[geek tragedy]

119. Kick, and waiting for the apology nt