You receive less than if you made it to 65 and contributed until that age. But you receive more than you would if only your contributions and years of work were considered.
People can read SSA publications, too, you know. Including social security statements like this pdf example.
Don’t assume what I know about SSDI. I went through the entire process with my ex and served as his protective payee until our divorce.
Why not? If you have been on SSDI for a number of years you are entitled to Medicare. And if you are entitled to Medicare, usually your health insurance providers insist you enroll.
We have Obamacare because the individual market for insurance was broken.
Well, if you’ve been preparing then you shouldn’t really be getting the SSDI, personal responsibility and all that.
The fact of the matter is that SSDI is social insurance. You don’t go out and actively enroll for SSDI benefits, everyone is enrolled if they get a paycheck… whether they like it or not. That is a tax on all that provides a benefit for a few. We have linked it with work history but I don’t see how you can make a huge moral distinction between SSDI and free lunch for kids, or food stamps, or WIC, or welfare. It is assistance for the less fortunate. You can argue that your benefits are justified and other benefits are not, but you have not made that case. You have just been shitting on the heads of people who get public assistance while carving out your form of public assistance as OK and you are doing it based on anecdote (which I suspect you are embellishing the way Brian Williams embellished his stories (you heard a few stories so you claim that you have direct knowledge of dozens of these stories)).
If anecdotes of welfare’s failures are evidence of anecdotes of welfare’s success should mean something too, right? I’ve got a few of those anecdotes. My family immigrated here when I was a baby. I got free school lunch all the way through high school. I had relatives on food stamps and Supplemental SSI. Between me and my siblings we will probably pay over a million dollars in taxes this year.
The same holds true for my in laws. They were actually on welfare for several years. and now they probably pay about a million/year in income taxes.
In fact I know a shitload of people who share this exact same experience.
So, because I know a few cases like this, I’m just going to assume that this is a common phenomenon that makes these welfare programs the best investment we ever made. Hell, to hear successful people talk about it, it seems like the majority of them had really humble roots and had free school lunch and shit like that.
Hahahaha. Your trolling is amusing but your ignorance of the Gulf of Tonkin is just sad. Maybe your google is broken?
mhendo asked, “Have you ever heard of the Gulf of Tonkin?” I have heard of the Gulf of Tonkin but I had hoped that mhendo might clarify what it was about the Gulf of Tonkin that he was referring to.
I’m aware that the North Vietnamese navy attacked the U.S. Navy on Aug 2, 1964. I’m also aware that the NV Navy did not attack the U.S. Navy on Aug 4, 1964.
Your ignorance only reflects your ignorance. Better luck next time.
See, that’s the problem. I, like andros and presumably everyone else in the thread, did not need mhendo to clarify which incident he was referring to, because it was bleedingly obvious from the context of his post to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the Vietnam war and 2 brain cells to rub together. Ergo, you don’t have a cursory knowledge of the history of the Vietnam war, or you don’t have 2 brain cells to rub together, or you’re a giant troll. andros was nice enough not to include the 2 brain cells option, but I think he’s a generous fellow. And your propensity for trolling has been established for a long while now. The only remaining question was about your ignorance.
I’m not sure what you think you are refuting here.
No, I am saying that quoting statistics without the definitions of the criteria used is the same thing as just saying what you believe. One can find studies and stats to support any position.
I don’t have time to read the whole thing right now, but it looks like it might be interesting about one area of welfare.
This was said about the workers within the welfare system, not the man on the street.
No, that isn’t true. It is entirely possible for someone to be receiving benefits legally but undeserving.
Sure! However, all anyone focuses on are the “hungry children”.
They are what form my opinions. I am far more likely to believe what I see for myself than what some anonymous person on the internet claims.
It would help if people didn’t assume large things based on one tiny fact. I have no interest in either of those solutions because they don’t address the underlying problem, which is the growing sense of entitlement to having whatever one wants whether they can afford it or not.
That doesn’t even make sense.
Then you should either make clearer posts or go back and review the facts. You haven’t been right yet. For example:
I am eligible for Medicare, but am covered under my husbands group insurance thru his employer. There is no reason for UHC (may they be nuked from space) to insist I enroll in Medicare because they would still have to pay as primary.
Are you really that dumb or just trolling? I already explained that.
The solution simply made that worse.
Why is that? At what point in my life do you think it would be OK with you to get my Social Security?
No. Everyone gets the benefit if they pay in and live long enough to qualify for it.
Only because you don’t want to hear it. Social Security is a government forced pension plan that happens to have a disability rider (or whatever that is called). Welfare is given to anyone who qualifies for it whether they have paid into the system or not, whether they are in trouble thru any fault of their own or not. And, it only covers those who were selfish and stupid enough to have children they couldn’t afford, with a couple of narrow exceptions.
Nope, these are people I know. If you would get your head out of your butt, you’d see them too. Or maybe it’s a California problem, I don’t know. There were far fewer welfare abusers in Washington, but that was over 20 years ago.
That’s nice. However you are talking about the past, not now. Generations ago, when people were embarrassed to take welfare and had work ethics for the most part. When the only credit they were paying off back then was their mortgage, if that.
Not that welfare is necessary for success. I grew up in poverty and didn’t make it to middle class until around my mid 20’s, and I never had one bit of welfare. No free lunches back then - I’m not sure Washington even had any sort of welfare back then. No Medicaid, no food stamps, no subsidized housing. I “just” worked hard and put off buying things until I could actually afford them. Which is a novel idea these days.
I’m not sure that you can read my words. You couldn’t prove it, considering your response to my asking for clarification as to what mhendo meant. You obviously object to people trying to have a conversation or asking questions. Haters gotta hate and bullies gotta be bullies. At least you have a goal in life.
FYI - I’m not trying to arrest you for your ignorance.
A lie as there is more people insured, and it also means more people with access to vaccines too, because it is important to notice that besides woo woo wealthy families not vaccinating their kids, a good number of kids were not vaccinated because of the cost or lack of access that poor families had.
As the Press secretary of the president reported: “thanks to the Affordable Care Act, they don’t have to worry about that anymore; that people who are covered under the Affordable Care Act through essentially getting health insurance through the marketplaces, we have required that those insurance programs include free preventative coverage, including vaccinations like those against measles. So that is one of the other benefits of the Affordable Care Act – both in terms of reducing costs, but also in terms of making people healthier.”
The ACA helps in that regard to plug the holes that exist in the herd immunity that helps preserve the health of all in our society.
Oh boy, another troll who objects to people asking for clarification. :smack: Oh, the humanity, the humanity. :rolleyes:
So here’s your chance to clarify which incident another poster was referring to. Was it the Aug 2nd or the Aug 4th incident? Or was it something different? You’re the professed mind reader. What is the amazing steronz best guess?
I take no position on the merits of your respective arguments, but pretending you don’t know what the Gulf of Tonkin reference was about is an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
I take no position on the merits of you not knowing the difference between asking for clarification and your presumption that I did not know of several incidents that did, and did not, occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
You object to people asking for clarification. I think your nom de plume was more than a random selection. Life goes on.
Actually, that falls rather neatly under “not my problem,” considering we’re talking about whether people should be able to CONTINUE LIVING or not based on their ability to pay.
(Or, technically, have to choose between living or facing a lifetime of crippling debt that conservatives will sneer at them at and insist must be their fault somehow, whether it is or not.)
