Do Republicans misunderstand Social Security, or just feign ignorance?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

It seems there is a lot of ignorance on Social Security. Even amongst Democrats. This LA times article clears up some of the confusion:

Rep. Tom Reed has claimed that his intention,"is to force us to look for a long term solution for SSDI rather than raiding Social Security to bail out a failing federal program. Retired taxpayers who have paid into the system for years deserve no less."

The article reports that Kathy, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, calls this a "revealing statement."

So it is, in the sense that a big red "F" on a school paper reveals a pupil's profound lack of understanding.

In the first place, SSDI is not "a failing federal program." It does exactly what it's supposed to do, which is provide sustenance for people who are too physically or mentally impaired to perform "substantial gainful activity," defined as the ability to earn $1,090 a month ($1,820 for the blind).

As for "raiding Social Security to bail out a failing federal program," the disability program is Social Security. Disability coverage was added to Social Security in 1956, or 15 years before Reed was born--under a Republican president

The article goes on to say that Reed is attempting to create animosity between SS retirement and disability beneficiaries.

Reed and his colleagues are exploiting the sharp growth in the disability rolls over recent decades to exploit the disabled as freeloaders and layabouts. To do so, they must deliberately ignore the extensive research that explains why that increase has happened: it can be explained virtually entirely by the aging of the U.S. population, the addition of women to the labor force, and the increase in Social Security's normal retirement age to 66 from 65.

It's particularly dismaying to see DUers buying into and spreading the misinformation straight from the mouths of Fox News and the Republicans.

The previous day the LA times reported on the House rule change in question.

"It is hard to believe that there is any purpose to this unprecedented change to House rules," wrote Max Richtman, president of the committee, in an open letter Tuesday, "other than to cut benefits for Americans who have worked hard all their lives, paid into Social Security and rely on their Social Security benefits, including Disability Insurance, in order to survive."

The rule change reflects the burgeoning demonization of disability recipients, a trend we've reported on in the past. it's been fomented by conservative Republicans and abetted by sloppy reporting by institutions such as NPR and "60 Minutes."

Disability recipients are easily caricatured as malingering layabouts by politicians, academics and journalists too lazy to do their homework. They'll say disability benefits are easy to obtain, so lavish they discourage work, and convenient substitutes for welfare payments. None of that is true.

Both of Michael Hiltzik's articles are worth reading and sharing.

[Recursion]

1. They dislike that states use SSI and SSDI to cut their own TANF rolls

There's a lot of lies and posturing going on, but that's what it really comes down to. States are paying consultants to seek out TANF and other state aid recipients and encourage them to apply for SSI or SSDI instead. Combine this with an industry of lawyers who have gotten the ALJ acceptance rate over 80%, and the conservatives at the Federal level start to hate that it's basically AFDC in a different form (conservatives at the state level love it because the state doesn't pay).

To compound the confusion, "Disability" includes both SSDI, which is administered and paid for by SSA, and SSI, which is just a direct general fund appropriation. We should probably fix that at some point, particularly since SSI is now approaching SSDI in terms of number of enrollees (it was never really planned to have that many people enrolled).

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

2. The same people want to deny federal disability payments of any kind are the same people who

support cutting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Thank goodness for the lawyers who are helping those qualified for benefits to get them. I reject the implication that the high acceptance rate indicates mass malfeasance.

So, how many enrollees was SSDI planned to have?

And, yes, as you say, the two Disability programs being administered by the SSA, does add to the confusion.

[Recursion]

3. It's not a question of absolute numbers

So, how many enrollees was SSDI planned to have?

I don't think a specific number was planned, but everyone assumed SSI would be a very small program relative to it, so it didn't get any dedicated revenues like SSDI did. (There's also the problem that by definition its enrollees have never been in a position to pay payroll levies in the first place.)

Thank goodness for the lawyers who are helping those qualified for benefits to get them. I reject the implication that the high acceptance rate indicates mass malfeasance.

Well, I don't think it indicates malfeasance either, but I think it's not working the way it's supposed to. The biggest sign of that is that the SSDI and SSI enrollment rates go up and down with the unemployment rate. The design was to have it be separate from the state of the overall economy (that may be a stupid design, but that was the intent). The only abuses I have heard of from the lawyers were lawyers who deliberately dragged out the appeal process because they get a bigger check at the end if they do that. The thing that does raise my eyebrow more is the consultants that states hire to go over their TANF and Unemployment rolls and try to convince people who aren't on SSI or SSDI to go on them.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

4. I don't see how it could be expected to be separate from the state of the overall economy.

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 09:50 AM - Edit history (2)

I haven't seen this mentioned, but I'll bet that many people who would have qualified for either SSI or SSDI in the past might not have applied when the economy in general was better.

Say your family has had a good income over the years and you've managed to put away some money. You could pretty easily afford to send you kids to college. You medical insurance wasn't massively expensive. Your pension hadn't been stolen by Wall Street. Your spouse is still working in a well-compensated position.

I say many people would have chosen not to apply for federal disability payments under these conditions. Those are far different conditions from those in which most of us find ourselves nowadays.

[daleanime]

15. +1

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

16. Thank you. Particularly in light of the fact that someone on another thread has interpreted this

post as proof that I am "fine with fraud." Good grief.

[daleanime]

22. Well, it's kind of personal for me......

since I've had to start my application for SSDI. I don't get why some people insist on 'everyone must work', when there are not enough jobs to go around to begin with.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

25. I know, right!? It's particularly irratating when you have RWers claiming that Obama ruined

economy and there are no jobs, and in the next breath talking about how worthless takers out there could get jobs if they really wanted them.

I'm sorry to hear you are having debilitating health problems, and I wish you luck with your application process.

[daleanime]

37. Thanks....

trying to stay positive and active!

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. If unable to work why would unemployment rate matter?

If you are unable to sit for 60 minutes, unable to walk or the other items that meet the definition of Disabled under SSDI. Why would it matter what the unemployment rate was? There are not many jobs where you can call in sick with back pain 5-10 days a month.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

46. Either you're replying to a different post, or you're replying to a post which you didn't not read

carefully. My post does not mention the unemployment rate. I don't know what your point is. Please clarify.

[One_Life_To_Give]

54. Employment rate is a measure of the economy

The debilitating disease and injury rates are largely independent of the economy. Also some of them have slow onset so it may be years to decades between onset and debilitation. Where one becomes unable to perform sedentary work; such as a inability to stay seated for an hour due to extreme debilitating pain. Inability to use one's hands due to tendon disease/injury etc.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

56. Sorry, but once again I can't see how your response is relevant to my post you were replying to.

Let's review. I said that it's possible that people who were qualified for disability benefits might not have applied when the economy in general was better.

Say your family has had a good income over the years and you've managed to put away some money. You could pretty easily afford to send you kids to college. You medical insurance wasn't massively expensive. Your pension hadn't been stolen by Wall Street. Your spouse is still working in a well-compensated position.

I say many people would have chosen not to apply for federal disability payments under these conditions. Those are far different conditions from those in which most of us find ourselves nowadays.

So, again, my post was about people who were entitled to disability benefits (for whatever condition) not bothering to apply for them because their financial situation was good enough that they could get by OK without the benefits.

Your main point seems to be that, "The debilitating disease and injury rates are largely independent of the economy." That may be true, but I can't see why you would feel the need to make this point in response to my point. What am I missing?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

5. You say that the lawyers have gotten the ALJ acceptance rate up to 80%.

Up from what when? And do you happen to know what percentage of the overall enrollment are ALJ cases? I'm finding it difficult to get reliable data.

[PotatoChip]

18. You are mistaken on TANF. It is not "state aid".

The funding comes from the federal government in the form of block grants, which is administered by the states. The only cost to states in regard to TANF would be administrative costs. And even then, I'm quite sure (like 99%-sure) that the federal government pays for 1/2 of the administrative costs- just as they do with SNAP. See info here: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf

Therefore, I'm not sure what benefit there would be for states to "pay consultants and encourage them (TANF recipients) to apply for SSI and SSDI"... Unless the administrative costs are so burdensome as to make it worthwhile. That could be the case, but I doubt it, because all but 8 states supplement SSI benefits from their own funds. The cost of doing this may equal, or possibly even exceed their TANF administrative costs.

Furthermore, since both SSI and SSDI disability based, one actually has to have a disability to qualify. So even if states are encouraging people to apply for these programs, they are unlikely to be eligible... Unless, of course, they actually have a disability.

Regarding your last paragraph, it is factually correct that SSI funding comes from the general fund. But I'd just like to add that it is a needs-based program. Unlike SSDI, which is an insurance that eligible recipients have had to pay into via FICA taxes (aka payroll taxes) by working prior to becoming disabled, SSI recipients are eligible based on low income and disability alone. IOW, SSI recipients do not necessarily have to have worked to qualify. SSDI recipients do have to have worked... Here is some good information that I found when I began looking into these programs further: http://www.disabilitysecrets.com/page5-13.html

Yes, I agree that it is all very confusing. And I think that R's are counting on that confusion to chip away at these programs. This is why it is important for all of us to be informed, even if these disability programs are not important to us personally... I think most people share my view that their ultimate goal is to do away with SS completely, and this is tactically a good way for them to start.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

48. Thank you! And let's keep on finding and sharing factual information. There are still some

people out there who are interested in the truth, though FoxNoise has created a huge group of Americans who wouldn't recognize a fact or understand a logical argument if their lives depended on it. And they very well may.

[jwirr]

39. What you are dtscribing in your first paragraph started when Clinton's welfare reform set time limit

on welfare. Social workers knew that many of their clients were not going to be able to find jobs so they referred them to SSDI.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

43. Hi jwirr

I'm not looking or a fight or anything but your statement seems like it needs some validation....................you can't just transfer people to SSDI can you? Isn't it meant to be means tested before being granted that status?

[jwirr]

45. You cannot just transfer them BUT we told them to fill out an application. I was a Social Worker

back then.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

49. Anyone can refer someone to SSDI in that they can tell them about it and how to apply. They will not

be accepted unless they qualify, and despite rumors to the contrary most applicants do not get approved.

One source says about only about 35% of applications are approved at the initial application level, and that of those who appeal, only 10% of applicants are approved at the reconsideration level.

Those who follow the process through to a hearing before an administrative law judge, may finally be approved. I cannot find reliable statistics on the approval rate at this final, state, but it is considerably higher than at any of the other stages. But, we should remember that not all who are rejected at earlier levels do appeal.

There is a long, fact-filled, source-rich article at Media Matters entitled, Right-Wing Media Miss The Facts On Disability Fraud, but the google link leads to a 502 Bad Gateway error, and the page never appears. The cached page from google does, but disapears after a few moments. I've saved the page, but can't look at it until tomorrow.

[NewDeal_Dem]

51. Increased SSI enrollees = result of cuts to welfare under clinton and the worst

recession since the great depression.

[Scuba]

6. Our nation only has one financial problem ....

An unwillingness to tax the people who have all the money.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

7. I couldn't agree with you more completley!

The corporate media has people foaming at the mouth because some guy on welfare ate a lobster once, so they don't have time to worry about the wealthy not paying their fair share.

The demonization of the underprivileged and the worship of the rich (no matter how they got that way) has been brought on by a very well-funded and well-executed propaganda campaign. Until the left can better that campaign, I fear things are just going to get worse.

[Enthusiast]

11. But Grover Norquist feels so good about that.

Saint Ronnie wanted it that way. We must protect the job creators.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

30. Even if they are lousy at creating jobs and most of the jobs they create are lousy?

Grove makes my skin crawl. And I wonder if even Raygun dared dream such a plutocracy could blossom so fully in the US.

[Enthusiast]

38. Ronnie didn't give it a second thought.

He just repeated what they told him. To Ronnie, it was just another script.

[LiberalLoner]

20. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

44. You couldn't have said that any better!!

[Fumesucker]

8. Yes

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

9. Correct...

on both counts. Well done.

[Johonny]

33. I go with yes, no

It think it used to be yes, yes but the people that knew the whole thing was a con-game are long gone. Today you are left with the Kool aid drinkers that I believe fundamentally don't know most GOP doctrine is based on convenient lies, half-truths, and talking points. I generally fear they are all fools at the highest levels. I look at the GOP and think which one knows this isn't true and which one is in on the game and I realize perhaps none of them are in on the game. They're all stupid, crazy, mother fuckers and they're in power!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

35. I don't know. I think there are lots who know it's a game--

a con game, that is.

Not that they aren't racist or don't look down on poor or disabled or other others. I'll best most do. And I wouldn't deny that most of them are stupid, crazy, mother fuckers mad with greed and power.

But I think a lot of them know that the venom they're constantly spewing consists of lies and exaggerations that allow them to manipulate and fleece their ignorant base.

And I'm pretty darn sure their main goal is to gain more money and power for themselves and their cronies, with making their perceived inferiors suffer a delicious bonus.

[Johonny]

36. Watching them all is like watching Victoria Jackson

I don't think they know it all isn't true, but I can't be sure it isn't an act. I think the money people and the party elite used to know it was all a game but now? I think the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist, Sarah Palin... I think they all believe. The idiots at FOX? I think all of them but maybe Kelly believe 100% in their own news.

I agree they all think they are going to make more money than God and they are all about self greed, but I'm never sure how much they buy into their own BS. I'm almost certain most of them are completely insane, stupid and totally believe the things that come out of their mouth.

The Ben Carsons of the world that game them for $$$ exist in such over supply right now because so many of these people truly have no clue and absolutely believe. That's why the House is such a mess. The leadership can't pass simple things because so many Republicans in the House are there to exactly what the party claims it wanted to do, they don't know it was all lies!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

50. Watching Victoria Jackson an act I can no longer perform. Eeeek.

I agree that a lot of the junior R reps in the house are off-the-charts RW nutjobs who want to destroy the government because they believe the lies about how Obama has enslaved us, will take our guns, is a dictator, eats babies, and similar nonsense. I hate the fact that this seemingly impenetrable RW fact-and-logic-free bubble has encased so many Americans.

[fredamae]

10. They Understand & Loathe Social Programs

Last edited Fri Jan 9, 2015, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Since the very beginning. There is No shortage of articles showing a solid track record of trying to convince the American people they Don't want and/or deserve to get Any ROI on our investments over the many decades. Period.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/07/230023627/gops-history-of-resistance-to-social-welfare-programs

And their Loathing doesn't stop there: Workers Rights, Womens Rights, Child Protection Laws, Educational Opportunities and on and on and on.
They're not "stupid". They are calculating and highly manipulative or their base would have demolished the GOP decades ago.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

12. Yes. This fear & loathing and a real knack for propaganda are undeniable. The Republcan party

clearly thrives on cynical calculation and malevolent manipulation, yes. But I do think a fair number of the elected RWers truly are imbeciles. I give you:

The queen of RW stupid, Michelle Bachman:

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas."

Dana Rohrabacher--House Committee on Science and Technology, a far-right California congressman:

"Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” Rohrabacher asked during a House hearing on U.N. climate policies.

Todd Akin:

If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

There are even better examples, but you get the idea.

[fredamae]

21. Gohmert ;) I don't disagree

at all with you...in fact, I'll go so far as to say these people are Critical Players in order to tap into emotions of the most under-informed, least educated and most paranoid and These folks are the driving force of FEAR with-in the base, imo.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

23. Gohmert, fer sher! I was looking for a good dumb qoute from him, but all that stupid was making me

tired, so I gave up. And yes, they don't want to scare off the base with too many smarty-pants leaders.

[fredamae]

24. "Don't Cast Aspersions on My Asparagus"

is (so far) my all time fav
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/louie-gohmert-eric-holder_n_3280953.html

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

26. Oh my. I thought you had made that one up just to be hilarious. It's even funnier since it's true!

Although, if I really think about it, it's not so funny.

It's only been since about 2008 that I started paying closer attention to politicians and I have to tell you, I was mortified to discover that people like Bachman & Gohmert & Friends were in such a position of power and responsibility. I honestly did not know.

I guess shouldn't have been surprised, since my RW sister said she voted for Dubya because she liked his mother. I kid you not.

[fredamae]

31. Nope-lol-it's all real

and while I Admire those who are professional writers, The Onion, TDS etc? I believe even they are challenged to imagine the stuff that Is quite real.
If filmmakers were to ever write a Documentary about congress, since at least 1992----it would have to be billed as a Comedy, imo.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

32. I'm thinking Tragicomedy.

[fredamae]

34. Yup-that's the Only choice :) n/t

[Enthusiast]

13. K&R! Feigning ignorance is a strategy.

Feigning ignorance became especially prevalent during the Dubya Administration. And it has grown exponentially since then.

It was more than "sloppy reporting" by NPR and 60 Minutes. They were also feigning ignorance. NPR and 60 Minutes have an agenda, a right wing agenda

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

14. It sucks about 60 Minutes going RW, and I should care more because they reach a wider audience,

(I believe), but it wounds me more deeply that NPR has become just another RW mouthpiece. I really used to enjoy NPR. Now, I can't listen unless it's not a "news" program. And they claim to be "non-commerical." ROTFLMAO!

[bearssoapbox]

17. I'd just like to know why the reTHUGliCONS want to kill American poor, disabled and the elderly?

Whether it be from suicide, sickness or exposure.

What the fuck is wrong with them.

I posted this question on boners speaker fb page.

Still waiting for an answer.

Hmmm...Just looked and can't find my question.

Does that mean that I shouldn't expect one?

I live in the boozers district.

[fredamae]

27. Bluntly: There is no Corp Profit Value

in them. "Used, Sick and Broken" people have zero corporate investment value and represent an obstruction - a Drain, if you will to their ability to further usurp the benefits of Our tax dollar investment returns (social programs), originally meant for "the people".
A Lot of our tax money is Now funneled right to wall street in the form of various corp/financial bailouts, tax subsidies and tax Breaks.
It may not have been the intent....but in the most raw reflection of experience...isn't this the consequence?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

29. Well said. We are talking about levels of greed that I would call downright evil.

[turbinetree]

19. Living on nothing and a Reed Virtue

Those of us that have paid into the SS for over 44 years knows that to cover the costs of inflation you are forced in many ways to go work part time.
Reed and his ilk, do not get SS because they are federal employees, and by virtue of being elected collects benefits that we the tax payers will give to him and his family after he his voted out of office, or if he "retires" and then goes and works as a lobbyist. By virtue I mean since he makes 174,000 a year DOING NOTHING he and his entitlement means that he gets 87,000 a year in pay, that is his SS payment, so if the SS system is broke then just maybe Reed and his ilk, should live on 1,900 per month in the average payout for SS and before you are taxed.
This spreading of fear and hate to further drive wedges in this society shows us one thing, he has no plan, he has no plan to tax those making over 117,000 and not paying any more into SS when they make 117,000.01 ( one cent) in income, that is part of the solution and this right wing republican hypocrite is just that a hypocrite .
And as for 60 minutes and NPR, quit watching and listening them along time ago, ever since there program directors for 60 minutes turned RW and the public funding was held hostage by republicans until they got there propaganda minions in the programs

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

28. Yep, So many of the wealthy and connected have all sorts of very highly paid positions just given to

them because they know someone. These are often positions that take a few hours a month, and which pay in one month than many of us make in an entire year! And this is on top of their primary money-making position and the money they make off of their money.

Yet these people dare talk about how the poor just need to work harder. As is a janitor or factory worker or countless others don't work hard at their jobs.

These overprivileged bastards have absolutely no clue how fortunate they are. And they give no credit to the people and the society in general that helped and allowed them to prosper. It's a sickness.

[turbinetree]

55. They do know

These elitists do know and they take all of the credit, and then when they get re-elected they turn right around and dig the proverbial knife deeper into the back and these same voters keep looking for the blame game knowing that its the person they just re-elected or they are just plain stupid and lazy.
Then because of how much money is protecting the incumbent mostly right wing republicans they (voters) don't see the corruption and the bribery being enabled by a (5) right wing U.S Supreme court members that should be Impeached for there corruption and bribery.
But the solution is to keep trying to change this corrupt system, expose the $174,000 / $225,000 they make a year in the newspaper and town hall meetings and everyday remind them that doing nothing and getting paid to do nothing is unacceptable, they make on average over $14,500 a month, they should not have six figure incomes.
But you are correct in your opinion

[TransitJohn]

41. They want to destroy it so are lying. eom

n/t

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

47. So you think the Republicans would attempt to decieve the masses in order to get what they want?

Yeah, me too. The scary thing is they are very good at getting what they want though underhanded means. Mendacious bastards.

[gerogie2]

42. Bye, Bye American Pie

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in Hell
Could break that Satan's spell

Millions of Americans will hate the new world order that will evolve over the next ten years.

[PoliticAverse]

52. If it is routine to reallocate funds then perhaps the trust funds should just be merged. n/t

[bobGandolf]

53. Did anyone on here really expect anything different from Republicans?

Over the years they have labeled any number of people receiving help as lazy, no good schemers, ripping off hard working Americans.
They will lie about SS recipients getting off from disability recipients now, to get us fighting each other instead of them.