Entitlement ......? [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Entitlement ......?


Pages : 1 [2]

skippz
10-16-2012, 22:24
Our men & women in the military are entitled whether you want to call it that or not, it's just the right thing to do... People who have worked and payed taxes all their lives are entitled... People who lay at home collecting a disability check at age 25 because they broke their thumb back in '94 aren't entitled to squat... And it's ridiculous that tax money is going to buy cell phones. Soon tax dollars will be funding the Internet as well for the lady in the video... This way she can spend hours on Facebook and learn better meth recipes!

certifiedfunds
10-16-2012, 22:45
People who have worked and payed taxes all their lives are entitled...

How much are they entitled to?

skippz
10-16-2012, 23:19
How much are they entitled to?

Thats the golden question my friend... Don't have a set number/percentage to throw at you, but they definitely deserve more than someone who has never worked, yet gets everything they need for free (medical, heat, food, housing, etc.) and even things they don't need (cell phones). I can barely pay my own phone bill... Now I have to cover someone else's?

dherloc
10-17-2012, 06:05
How much are they entitled to?

Whatever was in their "entitlement/compensation package" when they signed on the dotted line.

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 06:42
Thats the golden question my friend... Don't have a set number/percentage to throw at you, but they definitely deserve more than someone who has never worked, yet gets everything they need for free (medical, heat, food, housing, etc.) and even things they don't need (cell phones). I can barely pay my own phone bill... Now I have to cover someone else's?

Well, if you can't put a number on it how do you know when they've been paid out?

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 06:43
Whatever was in their "entitlement/compensation package" when they signed on the dotted line.

Social Security recipients didn't sign on any dotted line.

JohnBT
10-17-2012, 07:00
"Social Security recipients didn't sign on any dotted line."

But their parents did. I suppose that makes it legal because the baby is obviously underage.

www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10023.html (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10023.html)

You +1'd this publicly. Undo (http://www.google.com/#)
"When you have a baby, one of the things that should be on your “to do” list is getting a Social Security number for your baby."

m51
10-17-2012, 07:08
Its not an entitlement if its earned or contributed to.

Handouts are another story.

If you paid into SS, you get, same for medicare.
If you served in the .mil, you get veterans benefits. Period.

Obama phones, food stamps, welfare, EITC, are another story. Cut off completely except for the most dire of circumstances.

This sums it up completely!

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 07:42
"Social Security recipients didn't sign on any dotted line."

But their parents did. I suppose that makes it legal because the baby is obviously underage.

www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10023.html (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10023.html)

You +1'd this publicly. Undo (http://www.google.com/#)
"When you have a baby, one of the things that should be on your “to do” list is getting a Social Security number for your baby."

Well of course. How else are they gonna get paid ? Gotta bring the young folks in!

Do it quickly before they can figure it out!

For a bunch of supposed conservatives, the GT crowd sure does love tax and spend socialism.

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 07:53
I predict that over the next 25 years, urination in cemeteries will be a big problem.

frizz
10-17-2012, 07:58
Our men & women in the military are entitled whether you want to call it that or not, it's just the right thing to do... People who have worked and payed taxes all their lives are entitled... People who lay at home collecting a disability check at age 25 because they broke their thumb back in '94 aren't entitled to squat... And it's ridiculous that tax money is going to buy cell phones. Soon tax dollars will be funding the Internet as well for the lady in the video... This way she can spend hours on Facebook and learn better meth recipes!

:upeyes:

Before you form an opinion on a subject, you should know the facts about it. Your opinion shows that you don't understand SS disability.

Getting SS disability isn't easy. As a matter of fact, depending on the political climate and other factors, pretty much everyone is turned down on the first application. That has to be appealed to an administrative law judge or higher, and that pretty much requires a lawyer.

Even then, there are usually periodic reviews

The notion of someone breaking a thumb and getting SS disability is preposterous. I have a neighbor who was a self-employed house painter. He is in his 40s, and had a brain aneurism.

He cannot use his right arm, and walks with great difficulty. His ability to speak is very limited; his vocabulary is limited to maybe 30 words. There is no way he could get any job.

Despite this, he was denied on his initial application, and had to appeal to get the benefits.

Sveke
10-17-2012, 07:59
How do we get the good ones out of the hood? Unfortunately a lot of people are products of their environment.

I'm a white guy from suburban CT, pretty good chance I got a better education and opportunity than someone from the Bronx.
The problem is there is no bridge to opportunity for "1st of the monthers". I bet most of them want to work.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

mgs
10-17-2012, 08:02
I yes ME was doing fine without playing GI JOE . I was drafted.
They stole two years of my life and gave it back , College !
I am a success story and carried MY own weight the rest of my life , taxes , etc. .

Had they not taken these years , I would have gotten to THAT plane sooner so speak for yourself.......:tongueout:

That is correct....drafted. Choosing to join is something totally different....your choice. GI Bill is a sales tool....not a need or right.

frizz
10-17-2012, 08:04
I can tell you what the end is. She is in the process of renouncing USA citizenship. One would think that is easy, but the USA wants its tax money....

Process? As I understand it, all you need to do is go to a US consulate, meet with a certain official, and renounce.

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 08:08
Process? As I understand it, all you need to do is go to a US consulate, meet with a certain official, and renounce.

Tell it to Eduardo Saverin

frizz
10-17-2012, 08:15
Tell it to Eduardo Saverin
OK. What is the process? What problems did he have? And is he typical of renunciation cases?

Sveke
10-17-2012, 08:18
Tell it to Eduardo Saverin

Need a better example than Eduardo.

We all know with that type of dough, you can do anything you want literally.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 08:18
OK. What is the process? What problems did he have? And is he typical of renunciation cases?

I don't know what the process is but I do know that saverin had congressmen seeking new laws to tax him just to leave. Clearly it wasn't so simple.

DanaT
10-17-2012, 08:28
Process? As I understand it, all you need to do is go to a US consulate, meet with a certain official, and renounce.

They make it a little more difficult, at least in Switzerland because they know why. You make appointments to get the paperwork. You come back. This isn't filled out right. Etc.

Simple things can be made difficult if someone choses.

I had to have a customs stamp. (something that literally took 10 seconds to do). It took me 4 days. The guy chose to be a pita.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DanaT
10-17-2012, 08:34
Process? As I understand it, all you need to do is go to a US consulate, meet with a certain official, and renounce.

Frizz. It also helps if you have a us passport or birthcertificate. Consulates don't like dealing without one. If you remember I said she is a us citizen because her father is. Mother is Swiss and she was born in switzerland. Travels with a Swiss passport. Swiss birth certificate.

Doesn't mean the US govt doesn't want money.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

dherloc
10-17-2012, 09:07
Social Security recipients didn't sign on any dotted line.

The statement you replied to was not about Social Security recipients. It was about the military.

Edit:

Nevermind...I see how you read it and why you replied the way you did. I read it slightly differently.

certifiedfunds
10-17-2012, 09:22
The statement you replied to was not about Social Security recipients. It was about the military.

Edit:

Nevermind...I see how you read it and why you replied the way you did. I read it slightly differently.

Fair enough. We've somehow got them all lumped together.

fwm
10-17-2012, 12:40
This is a prime example of the hypocrisy that is running rampant among Conservatives. They believe the pablum spoon fed to them without thinking for themselves and then spout it back while denying the truth.

Actually, as a group, conservatives are the most educated, self starters and self thinkers in any country. They don't believe 'the pablum spoon fed to them'. They agree with certain facts because they have researched the truth before believing anything.

You don't find conservatives in mobs blindly following whoever speaks the floweriest or loudest, you find the liberals. 68 Democratic convention, OWS are two that come to mind.

fwm
10-17-2012, 12:44
The truth is, the GI Bill is deferred compensation.

The deal is, you serve in the military for low pay and benefits for some number of years and defer a reasonable wage, we will pay the difference to the survivors between what is reasonable and what you get while serving in the future.
Fixed it for you.

nursetim
10-17-2012, 13:06
:upeyes:

Before you form an opinion on a subject, you should know the facts about it. Your opinion shows that you don't understand SS disability.

Getting SS disability isn't easy. As a matter of fact, depending on the political climate and other factors, pretty much everyone is turned down on the first application. That has to be appealed to an administrative law judge or higher, and that pretty much requires a lawyer.

Even then, there are usually periodic reviews

The notion of someone breaking a thumb and getting SS disability is preposterous. I have a neighbor who was a self-employed house painter. He is in his 40s, and had a brain aneurism.

He cannot use his right arm, and walks with great difficulty. His ability to speak is very limited; his vocabulary is limited to maybe 30 words. There is no way he could get any job.

Despite this, he was denied on his initial application, and had to appeal to get the benefits.

I present this http://www.ssa.gov/disability/professionals/bluebook/AdultListings.htm as to what qualifies you for SSI disability. I have yahoos trying to get me to certify them as disabled. The one condition that I would certify most of those yahoos with is not on the list, malingering.

Yes, most get turned down first go round. Then they hire a shyster to spin it for the, most likely, bored out of their gourd admin law judge. The judge is entertained enough or tired enough to approve the case the second go round. How they get compensated for this I still don't understand. Anyhow, the number of shysters advertising for this service has skyrocketed in the past few years.

nursetim
10-17-2012, 13:10
Actually, as a group, conservatives are the most educated, self starters and self thinkers in any country. They don't believe 'the pablum spoon fed to them'. They agree with certain facts because they have researched the truth before believing anything.

You don't find conservatives in mobs blindly following whoever speaks the floweriest or loudest, you find the liberals. 68 Democratic convention, OWS are two that come to mind.

OH SNAP! Oh no you dinit. Oh no yo dinit go and use a historical reference to shut the brother down.:notlistening::shame:

skippz
10-17-2012, 15:19
:upeyes:

Before you form an opinion on a subject, you should know the facts about it. Your opinion shows that you don't understand SS disability.

Getting SS disability isn't easy. As a matter of fact, depending on the political climate and other factors, pretty much everyone is turned down on the first application. That has to be appealed to an administrative law judge or higher, and that pretty much requires a lawyer.

Even then, there are usually periodic reviews

The notion of someone breaking a thumb and getting SS disability is preposterous. I have a neighbor who was a self-employed house painter. He is in his 40s, and had a brain aneurism.

He cannot use his right arm, and walks with great difficulty. His ability to speak is very limited; his vocabulary is limited to maybe 30 words. There is no way he could get any job.

Despite this, he was denied on his initial application, and had to appeal to get the benefits.

My friend, your area is much different than mine. I'm 30 years old, I work in the medical field and see day in and day out people much younger than me who draw disability/SSI... They get it much too easily. Now the broken thumb I mentioned was an analogy, but I have seen people be granted disability for broken bones (legs & arms) that have totally healed and present no further debilitation... There's attorneys here who all but guarantee clients will be approved for it... So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

ttowndeputy
10-17-2012, 17:04
To those of you that think the new GI bill is an unnecessary "entitlement" program. I would wonder if you ever had the guts to enlist, and serve your country? Or perhaps you'd rather complain about those of us that proudly wore the uniform...I'd rather have my tax dollars going to a program like this, than be wasted on lazy welfare mutts!

FLGatorFan
10-17-2012, 18:31
I had an Adam Henry come into my office sucking around for SSI disability because he was depressed about being unemployed, despite working occasionally off the books. I came up with an awesome treatment plan for this jackwagon, and he blows it off, bucket of monkey jizz.



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

IQof1
10-17-2012, 19:50
To those of you that think the new GI bill is an unnecessary "entitlement" program. I would wonder if you ever had the guts to enlist, and serve your country? Or perhaps you'd rather complain about those of us that proudly wore the uniform...I'd rather have my tax dollars going to a program like this, than be wasted on lazy welfare mutts!

+1 this

Scott3670
10-17-2012, 20:09
My wife currently receives SSI disability. She has had 5 spinal surgeries including a 2-stage fusion and a spinal cord stimulator. Despite this, she actually had to go to court to fight for her disability. The judge, when presented with the incontrovertible medical evidence (which was validated by his medical expert), approved her disability. In fact, the only reason my wife had to go to court was that she was only 41 at the time and the judge wanted to see for himself that she truly met the criteria for disability. I truly applaud the judge's decision to personally evaluate her condition - and wish all cases were subjected to such an evaluation.

Z71bill
10-18-2012, 07:47
The problem is OUT OF CONTROL government spending.

A BIG part of every entitlement - and I mean all entitlements - social security, medicare & GI bill - were all - at least in part passed into law --

TO GET VOTES -- so someone could get REELECTED.

The problem with entitlements is you pass stuff that gives people things - mostly in the future - so it is easy to overspend.

As a result of all of these past "promises" we are heading into a financial crisis.

DO THE MATH -

Even under current spending - if we had to balance the federal budget - EVERY TAXPAYER would see their FEDERAL taxes (income + payroll) increase by 40%.

The real question is -

You want to keep the government entitlement checks flowing - and pay 40% more in taxes - or cut back on some of the entitlements.

If you do a little reading you will quickly figure out that the REAL HEAVY spending - the things that future payments are talked about in TRILLIONS - are the very programs that some here are claiming are NOT really entitlements because - I paid into SS - or I earned theses entitlement benefits.

All the other (true:upeyes:) welfare is real money too - but it is small potatoes compared to the others.

The bottom line is - IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEY ARE earned or deferred compensation - because there is just not enough money in the country to pay for all of the promises.

dherloc
10-18-2012, 07:56
Since the debate is primarily about which "entitlement" program should be cut...will use 40% as the lets balance it out standard since it was recently brought up.

Why not a 40% across the board cut for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING that the government spends money on? Mr. Prez...you get a 40% pay cut. Mr. E-1...so do you. Foreign aid...40%. SS recipients...40%. EVERYONE. Road budget...40%. Grants to study fruit fly wing size...40%. Cancer research...40%. Section 8...40%. EVERYTHING. You get the idea.

No hike in taxes, spending is suddenly under control, and we go from there.

Lets face it...never going to happen. Greece, here we come!

mgs
10-18-2012, 08:05
Entitlement (700 billion) has now exceeded spending of the Defense Department (500 billion)....that is a nightmare!

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 08:11
Entitlement (700 billion) has now exceeded spending of the Defense Department (500 billion)....that is a nightmare!

Welfare spending is well in excess of $700B. It is right near total annual federal revenue of $2.2T.

Social security and Medicare alone are right about $1T.

mgs
10-18-2012, 08:14
Welfare spending is well in excess of $700B. It is right near total annual federal revenue of $2.2T.

Social security and Medicare alone are right about $1T.

Yikes!!!! Thanks but this has to stop!

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 08:16
Yikes!!!! Thanks but this has to stop!

Pretty much every dime of tax revenue is spent on welfare. Debt funds everything else, including DOD

nursetim
10-18-2012, 08:42
The cuts that would have to be made will never be made as they are too dramatic. We could shut down the government and fold the tents, and it still would not help. Maybe taking the check book away from the politicians and the beurocrats, I don't like them enough to spell their title correctly, but then who do you give it to?

The answer is, drum roll please. There is no answer. We will default at some point and Argentina's fate will be ours. Oh joy.

series1811
10-18-2012, 12:34
Since the debate is primarily about which "entitlement" program should be cut...will use 40% as the lets balance it out standard since it was recently brought up.

Why not a 40% across the board cut for EVERYONE and EVERYTHING that the government spends money on? Mr. Prez...you get a 40% pay cut. Mr. E-1...so do you. Foreign aid...40%. SS recipients...40%. EVERYONE. Road budget...40%. Grants to study fruit fly wing size...40%. Cancer research...40%. Section 8...40%. EVERYTHING. You get the idea.

No hike in taxes, spending is suddenly under control, and we go from there.

Lets face it...never going to happen. Greece, here we come!

That illustrates the problem in a very understandable way. A 40 per cent across the board cut in everything is about what it would take to balance the budget and to start to take care of the debt.

But, most of the federal programs have lobbiest who will start handing out money to Congressmen (and the President) to get their 40 per cent cut removed. And, then we are right back were we started.

muscogee
10-18-2012, 13:20
That is obvious that you dont know how it works.

Are you OK with a system that you are only entitled to go to PUBLIC hospitals and CANNOT go to the better PRIVATE hospitals because you can't afford it?

Are you OK with waiting in line 8 hours for a shot at a public hospital?

Are you OK with being in a ward (no rooms) with 20 other patients?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?_r=0

Quote from one of the comments,

bookmanjbMunichNYT Pick

Here in Germany, to where I moved from the US 8 years ago, there is no question about this issue and has not been for decades. Here we have what amounts to a PRIVATE option. That's right, everyone is mandated to pay into the system but one has the right to opt out of the system and buy one's own insurance, which is what I do. Here's what I get: 90% of the first 4000 euros and then 100% thereafter, including dental!!!--NO DEDUCTIBLE. One pair of glasses every two years, unless my prescription changes, in which case, another pair as needed. Semi-private room for hospitalization. I choose any doctors I want. My daughter is named on my policy and receives the same 90%/100% deal. If I make no claims in a calendar year, I get a 25% refund of my annual premium cost. That's right; the insurance companies incentivize wellness BECAUSE IT INCREASES THEIR PROFITS. All of this costs me less than 25% of what the same coverage (if it were available) would cost me in the States. Doctors & insurance company execs earn upper-middle class incomes and occasionally become rich. The quality of the care is excellent. And oh, I forgot to mention my wife. She is publicly insured. Her publicly mandated payments are 149 euros per month and she pays ten euros per doctor per quarter.

I sure wish I was back in the States so I could have my freedoms and liberties back.

That doesn't match what you said.

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 13:29
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?_r=0

Quote from one of the comments,



That doesn't match what you said.

Did you even read the article you quoted? The guy's friend had a good paying job with insurance, and then quit that job to "read books and play poker" making $13,000 per year.

Then he was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Is that what you folks think should happen? Guy quits his job to "read books and play poker" and the taxpayers should pick up his healthcare costs when he gets cancer?

What idiots.

Choices have consequences. Quit trying to paper over them with other people's money.

Z71bill
10-18-2012, 16:18
That illustrates the problem in a very understandable way. A 40 per cent across the board cut in everything is about what it would take to balance the budget and to start to take care of the debt.

But, most of the federal programs have lobbyist who will start handing out money to Congressmen (and the President) to get their 40 per cent cut removed. And, then we are right back were we started.

Actually - in nice round numbers --

it is 40% increase in taxes -- but 29% cut in spending-- to balance the budget.

1 trillion deficit
2.5 trillion tax revenue
3.5 trillion spending

1/2.5 = 40% tax increase

But only 1/3.5 = 29% spending cut.

Don't you feel better that we only need to cut about 30% instead of 40%? :upeyes:

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 16:36
Actually - in nice round numbers --

it is 40% increase in taxes -- but 29% cut in spending-- to balance the budget.

1 trillion deficit
2.5 trillion tax revenue
3.5 trillion spending

1/2.5 = 40% tax increase

But only 1/3.5 = 29% spending cut.

Don't you feel better that we only need to cut about 30% instead of 40%? :upeyes:

That should be clarified, increase in tax revenue, not tax rates. You know the two aren't the same thing.

DanaT
10-18-2012, 22:54
That should be clarified, increase in tax revenue, not tax rates. You know the two aren't the same thing.

People don't know that and that is where Romney isn't explaining it. Obama has people believing that the only way to get more revenue is to raise to raise the rate on another group. He wants a bigger of
The same sized (or smaller) pie. He can't see that a smaller piece of bigger may actually be more pie.

For those that have a hard time with math. Which is more? A half of a 3lb chicken or a quarter of a 15lb turkey?




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

boomhower
10-19-2012, 06:06
:upeyes:

Before you form an opinion on a subject, you should know the facts about it. Your opinion shows that you don't understand SS disability.

Getting SS disability isn't easy. As a matter of fact, depending on the political climate and other factors, pretty much everyone is turned down on the first application. That has to be appealed to an administrative law judge or higher, and that pretty much requires a lawyer.

Even then, there are usually periodic reviews

The notion of someone breaking a thumb and getting SS disability is preposterous. I have a neighbor who was a self-employed house painter. He is in his 40s, and had a brain aneurism.

He cannot use his right arm, and walks with great difficulty. His ability to speak is very limited; his vocabulary is limited to maybe 30 words. There is no way he could get any job.

Despite this, he was denied on his initial application, and had to appeal to get the benefits.

It must vary on locality. My area has gotten to be known as the place to go to get a check. They have even started to come from neighboring states. The city keeps building more projects and more and more come. No one works. The side-effect is business has stopped coming. It's gone on so long there is no longer a workforce here. If a company came in and wanted to hire 150 workers for factory jobs they couldn't do it. Out of 15,000 people in this town they could not find 150 people who:

1. don't have a better job(schools system, city, county, or hospital)
2. Graduated HS or have GED
3. Could pass a drug test
4. Have a clean enough criminal background
5. Actually want to work.

It just wouldn't happen. Everyone is happy sitting at home collecting there checks. I deal with these folks everyday. 25 years old with three or four kids collecting checks. I actually had a woman with a three month old baby getting an SSI check because the baby had ADD. How the hell to you diagnose ADD in the three month old? Tell me it isn't a racket for crooked docs/lawyers and I call BS.

The system is going to break on day and it isn't going to be pretty.

ken grant
10-19-2012, 13:35
S.S. was doing great until the Politicians saw how much money was in the fund and decided to dip into it to fund other projects.

Z71bill
10-19-2012, 15:00
S.S. was doing great until the Politicians saw how much money was in the fund and decided to dip into it to fund other projects.

I think -

When status of SS is reported they count the IOU's from the cash borrowed and spent from the general fund as part of the assets available to meet the entitlements.

So - on one hand the money being taken does not change the point where SS will "run out of money" that the CBO does. They are making the assumption that the government will pay back the government. :cool:

But of course it does matter - because the federal government will need to (most likely) borrow the money to pay back the SS "trust:upeyes::rofl:" fund from someplace else.

IMHO even if the cash was not drained off and spent - it would still be an overstatement to say SS was doing great before.

If this was a company type pension plan it would show as underfunded by TRILLIONS of dollars either way.

Ponzi scheme would be more accurate description - :dunno:

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 15:11
S.S. was doing great until the Politicians saw how much money was in the fund and decided to dip into it to fund other projects.

Think about the very premise of SS doing great. Is that really what you consider a positive thing?

Basically you're saying that the citizens are being taxed at a greater amount than the program is paying out.

Why is it good ?

skippz
10-19-2012, 22:16
It must vary on locality. My area has gotten to be known as the place to go to get a check. They have even started to come from neighboring states. The city keeps building more projects and more and more come. No one works. The side-effect is business has stopped coming. It's gone on so long there is no longer a workforce here. If a company came in and wanted to hire 150 workers for factory jobs they couldn't do it. Out of 15,000 people in this town they could not find 150 people who:

1. don't have a better job(schools system, city, county, or hospital)
2. Graduated HS or have GED
3. Could pass a drug test
4. Have a clean enough criminal background
5. Actually want to work.

It just wouldn't happen. Everyone is happy sitting at home collecting there checks. I deal with these folks everyday. 25 years old with three or four kids collecting checks. I actually had a woman with a three month old baby getting an SSI check because the baby had ADD. How the hell to you diagnose ADD in the three month old? Tell me it isn't a racket for crooked docs/lawyers and I call BS.

The system is going to break on day and it isn't going to be pretty.

Same in my neck of the woods... It's actually sad because there are ppl who are truly disabled, and they have so many hoops to jump thru because of the lazy a**es that collect it undeservingly, all the while doing handyman work off the books for cash.

.264 magnum
10-19-2012, 22:24
The biggest social entitlement package is the GI Bill.

That makes no sense at all to me. Can you explain?

frizz
10-19-2012, 23:22
My friend, your area is much different than mine. I'm 30 years old, I work in the medical field and see day in and day out people much younger than me who draw disability/SSI... They get it much too easily. Now the broken thumb I mentioned was an analogy, but I have seen people be granted disability for broken bones (legs & arms) that have totally healed and present no further debilitation... There's attorneys here who all but guarantee clients will be approved for it... So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course it happens. But as the general rule, it isn't that easy. I base MY view on knowing three people who work for SS; both of them are sickened by undeserving people who get disability.

They don't much care for clearly deserving people to be denied.

How about, unless you don't want to say where you live, you say which lawyers all but guarantee approval?

boomhower
10-19-2012, 23:47
Same in my neck of the woods... It's actually sad because there are ppl who are truly disabled, and they have so many hoops to jump thru because of the lazy a**es that collect it undeservingly, all the while doing handyman work off the books for cash.

I agree. My father in law had to fight tooth and nail. He worked in a factory all his life and has a degenerative back disease. He can't work without sever pain. He was denied once and went on for three years. Filled again and after a year on long term disability through his work and fighting the system he finally got disability, and backpay for being wrongfully denied the first time. He worked his whole life, paid into the system, and couldn't get it when he needed it. Now you have these idiots who never paid a nickel into the system living their whole lives off of it.

AZson
10-20-2012, 17:03
SS is not an entitlement, we have paid for it.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 17:57
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/opinion/kristof-scotts-story-and-the-election.html?_r=0

Quote from one of the comments,



That doesn't match what you said.

No arguing with stupidity. Again, how much do you live in Germany? Shall we compare that with how much I live in Germany? But of course you are an "expert".

And how much have you worked in hospitals in Germany? Please name one...

muscogee
10-20-2012, 18:19
No arguing with stupidity. Again, how much do you live in Germany? Shall we compare that with how much I live in Germany? But of course you are an "expert".

And how much have you worked in hospitals in Germany? Please name one...

Your claim does not match what the man who lives there said. You're an elitists. You have no idea how the middle class and working class people in the U.S. and Germany live. What's good for you isn't necessarily good for them. How many times have you been admitted to the hospital in the past few years? Probably none.

Z71bill
10-20-2012, 18:25
SS is not an entitlement, we have paid for it.

The social security administration considers social security an entitlement.

So does congress - they wrote the law.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 18:31
Your claim does not match what the man who lives there said. You're an elitists. You have no idea how the middle class and working class people in the U.S. and Germany live. What's good for you isn't necessarily good for them. How many times have you been admitted to the hospital in the past few years? Probably none.

When I needed a doctor in Germany, I was actually pretty luck. I got to cut in line and was seen immediately. Why? Because I worked with the doctors and hospital. I was able to get seen within minutes when there was a month wait for non-emergency treatment at the same hospital.

Mine wouldn't have been an "emergency" and likely a German would not have even been able to get into the doctor. (It was a bad sinus infection, and getting into a doctor for those is very difficult because Europe severely limits anti-biotics).

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 18:38
SS is not an entitlement, we have paid for it.

Wrong. You paid for someone else's.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 19:02
You're an elitists. You have no idea how the middle class and working class people in the U.S. and Germany live.

Is that best you have? Instead of sulking about why someone wasnt giving me my share, I decided to do something about it. Maybe you should try that and you wouldnt be so upset at the world...

muscogee
10-20-2012, 20:10
When I needed a doctor in Germany, I was actually pretty luck. I got to cut in line and was seen immediately. Why? Because I worked with the doctors and hospital. I was able to get seen within minutes when there was a month wait for non-emergency treatment at the same hospital.

Like I said, an elitists. You get to cut in line ahead of the peasants. You're entitled to it because you're such a great guy.

Javelin
10-20-2012, 20:32
The truth is, the GI Bill is deferred compensation.

The deal is, you serve in the military for low pay and benefits for some number of years and defer a reasonable wage, we will pay the difference between what is reasonable and what you get while serving in the future.

Exactly.

You folks bashing the .mil need to read this and if it doesn't make sense, read it again.

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:31
Like I said, an elitists. You get to cut in line ahead of the peasants. You're entitled to it because you're such a great guy.

People who pay their own way SHOULD get to cut in line ahead of the peasants.

DanaT
10-21-2012, 08:05
Like I said, an elitists. You get to cut in line ahead of the peasants. You're entitled to it because you're such a great guy.

And the flight attendants "gave" me an ice cream sundae on flight Friday too. I am entitled to it BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT.

You really dont seem to get that concept. Try it one day. Pay for what you want. If you want more, figure out a way to pay it. Its an amazing system. If you want something, earn it instead of whining about why other people get ice cream and you get none.

I was much happier after the ice cream. I do however, wish that United had an espresso machine on the plane like Swiss Airlines does. Actually, I wish the United planes were as nice as Swiss. But, again, if I want that,I should quit whining and fly Swiss (of course i would also have to go where Swiss flies).

Eurodriver
10-21-2012, 08:35
Exactly.

You folks bashing the .mil need to read this and if it doesn't make sense, read it again.

Low wages? I was making $54,000 a year after taxes as a 4 year E5 in Hawaii (With BAH and FSA)

Low benefits? Sure, I was a Marine so our BAS (battalion aid station) was practically a condemned building. But I had four years of completely free medical and dental and eye care. Completely 100% cost free. I knew girls who got breast augmentations on the military's dime. Guy's who've had lasik. All sorts of elected procedures. Doesn't sound like low benefits to me.

Have you looked at how unsustainable the GI Bill is? The Post 9/11 GI Bill? That $1200 I paid (Which pissed me off, because they switched GI Bills 1/2 way through my enlistment and now the new guys dont pay) is a mere 1% of what I am currently ENTITLED to.

For 4 years of service I now get:

5 years of free VA healthcare (I served in a combat zone)
36 months of free tuition
36 months of BAH at the E5 w/ dependents rate
36 months of GI Bill "Kicker" payments

Comes out to $115,000+ just in educational benefits (Not including the healthcare)

The only reason the damn GI Bill was made in the first place was to prevent another catastrophe with what happened after WWI and the Bonus Army. FDR saw 12,000,000 GIs coming home soon and needed to offer them something in order to prevent massive unemployment or riots.

But sure, go ahead and keep saying our vets "Deserve" this.

The only thing we're getting is more debt and an army full of Jamal's claiming "Nah brah, I don't give a damn about my country. I just needed college money"

DanaT
10-21-2012, 08:39
Low wages? I was making $54,000 a year after taxes as a 4 year E5 in Hawaii (With BAH and FSA)

Low benefits? Sure, I was a Marine so our BAS (battalion aid station) was practically a condemned building. But I had four years of completely free medical and dental and eye care. Completely 100% cost free. I knew girls who got breast augmentations on the military's dime. Guy's who've had lasik. All sorts of elected procedures. Doesn't sound like low benefits to me.

Have you looked at how unsustainable the GI Bill is? The Post 9/11 GI Bill? That $1200 I paid (Which pissed me off, because they switched GI Bills 1/2 way through my enlistment and now the new guys dont pay) is a mere 1% of what I am currently ENTITLED to.

For 4 years of service I now get:

5 years of free VA healthcare (I served in a combat zone)
36 months of free tuition
36 months of BAH at the E5 w/ dependents rate
36 months of GI Bill "Kicker" payments

Comes out to $115,000+ just in educational benefits (Not including the healthcare)

The only reason the damn GI Bill was made in the first place was to prevent another catastrophe with what happened after WWI and the Bonus Army. FDR saw 12,000,000 GIs coming home soon and needed to offer them something in order to prevent massive unemployment or riots.

But sure, go ahead and keep saying our vets "Deserve" this.

The only thing we're getting is more debt and an army full of Jamal's claiming "Nah brah, I don't give a damn about my country. I just needed college money"

I have much less problem paying someone $115k in education benefits for serving our country than I do paying $1M to keep someone old mother alive another two months.

At least one is an investment in society.

Eurodriver
10-21-2012, 08:41
I have much less problem paying someone $115k in education benefits for serving our country than I do paying $1M to keep someone old mother alive another two months.

At least one is an investment in society.

I'm not disagreeing with this at all. I would gladly pay vets money over Maliks and Sheniqua's raising babies.

....but my point is that they are both unsustainable.

We can't just keep giving out taxpayers money like it grows on trees.

certifiedfunds
10-21-2012, 08:49
I have much less problem paying someone $115k in education benefits for serving our country than I do paying $1M to keep someone old mother alive another two months.

At least one is an investment in society.

A surgeon buddy of mine talks about how families tell them "Do whatever you have to do to keep grandma alive". Of course they say this, someone else has to pay for it. As he calls it, "Dialyzing a dead woman".

He says that he often refuses and tells them to find another surgeon. The inevitably do.

DanaT
10-21-2012, 08:52
I'm not disagreeing with this at all. I would gladly pay vets money over Maliks and Sheniqua's raising babies.

....but my point is that they are both unsustainable.

We can't just keep giving out taxpayers money like it grows on trees.

I think the military would be sustainable without the rest.

Z71bill
10-21-2012, 09:14
Just about every person that gets government cash - and it does not matter if it is a paycheck or food stamps or a free mobility scooter --

THEY THINK THEY DESERVE IT.

The REAL problem is - we have a system that makes it next to impossible for our elected officials to cut any of the spending programs.

Every entitlement program has become sacred -

You can't reduce SS or medicare - or you hate old people

You can't cut military entitlements because then you hate the military

You can't cut student loans - because who could be against education

You can't cut food stamps - or you hate "starving people"

The one thread all of these entitlement programs have in common is they have entrenched support from the people that are GETTING the checks - and they WANT THE CASH - and if the elected representatives want to get reelected they must continue to buy the votes.

Something has got to change - unless we want to have a complete financial collapse.

Just think - in the year 2000 the federal government spent $1.6 trillion dollars

In 2012 they spent $3.8 trillion.

Taxes collected went from $1.7 trillion in 2000 to $2.5 trillion in 2012.

If you can't look at these numbers and tell that we have a spending problem then you are not trying very hard.

series1811
10-21-2012, 09:32
Something has got to change - unless we want to have a complete financial collapse.



Sometimes, I think that that is the only thing that will cause our spending to change.

muscogee
10-21-2012, 09:49
I have much less problem paying someone $115k in education benefits for serving our country than I do paying $1M to keep someone old mother alive another two months.

At least one is an investment in society.

Off with their heads. Do you find it medieval to eliminate people when they become inconvenient. You're really out of touch with thee 21st century.

muscogee
10-21-2012, 09:55
Just about every person that gets government cash - and it does not matter if it is a paycheck or food stamps or a free mobility scooter --

THEY THINK THEY DESERVE IT.

The REAL problem is - we have a system that makes it next to impossible for our elected officials to cut any of the spending programs.

Every entitlement program has become sacred -

You can't reduce SS or medicare - or you hate old people

You can't cut military entitlements because then you hate the military

You can't cut student loans - because who could be against education

You can't cut food stamps - or you hate "starving people"

If you raise taxes you're a leftist, socialist, fascist, communists and you're ignorant. The next President will raise your taxes because he has too. Do you want the working class and middle class to bear the bulk of the tax increases, like they have since Reagan, or do you want to ultra rich to bear the bulk of the burden?

DanaT
10-21-2012, 09:59
Off with their heads. Do you find it medieval to eliminate people when they become inconvenient. You're really out of touch with thee 21st century.

I believe that people should be responsible for themselves.

I also believe that the amount of money spent keeping old people alive another 2 months is wasted money and society shouldnt be picking up the tab.

Do some actual thinking and fact checking. Find out how much medical care the last two months of an old persons life costs and how good medicine is at changing the outcome.

Of course you can't think in a logical method. First you tell me how great socialized medicine is in Germany, knowing nothing about it, deny that there are two systems in place for health care in Germany with vastly different flavors between the two, and then say I have no experience. When I tell you about when I needed a doctor in Germany and I was able to get one, when Germans in the same situation couldnt have, I am an elitist for cutting in line. You dodged the whole issue that I had to "cut in line". In the USA, if I have the same ailment, there is no line to cut into.

OF course, that doesnt fit with your incorrect narrative of socialized medicine so its easier to call me an "elitist" instead of explaining why there are lines that I had to by-pass.

So lets ask you. WHY was there a line that I had to cut into and WHY is it good that there are lines? I suspect you will dodge this question too...

DanaT
10-21-2012, 10:01
If you raise taxes you're a leftist, socialist, fascist, communists and you're ignorant. The next President will raise your taxes because he has too. Do you want the working class and middle class to bear the bulk of the tax increases, like they have since Reagan, or do you want to ultra rich to bear the bulk of the burden?

If I go to the local steak house, I can eat a small sirloin. I can eat a 23 oz porterhouse. If I chose to eat that 23 ozsteak, I need to pay for it.

People should pay based upon what they use. I think everyone should pay the exact dame DOLLAR amount of taxes since we get the same services.

certifiedfunds
10-21-2012, 10:19
I believe that people should be responsible for themselves.

I also believe that the amount of money spent keeping old people alive another 2 months is wasted money and society shouldnt be picking up the tab.

Do some actual thinking and fact checking. Find out how much medical care the last two months of an old persons life costs and how good medicine is at changing the outcome.

Of course you can't think in a logical method. First you tell me how great socialized medicine is in Germany, knowing nothing about it, deny that there are two systems in place for health care in Germany with vastly different flavors between the two, and then say I have no experience. When I tell you about when I needed a doctor in Germany and I was able to get one, when Germans in the same situation couldnt have, I am an elitist for cutting in line. You dodged the whole issue that I had to "cut in line". In the USA, if I have the same ailment, there is no line to cut into.

OF course, that doesnt fit with your incorrect narrative of socialized medicine so its easier to call me an "elitist" instead of explaining why there are lines that I had to by-pass.

So lets ask you. WHY was there a line that I had to cut into and WHY is it good that there are lines? I suspect you will dodge this question too...

Outstanding point!

Muscogee, why are there lines?

certifiedfunds
10-21-2012, 10:22
If you raise taxes you're a leftist, socialist, fascist, communists and you're ignorant. The next President will raise your taxes because he has too. Do you want the working class and middle class to bear the bulk of the tax increases, like they have since Reagan, or do you want to ultra rich to bear the bulk of the burden?

The socialists aren't trying to tax the ultra rich. They're trying to tax folks making $250k-$1MM/ yr. those aren't ultra rich

Besides if you tax the wealthy at100% it still won't fund all of your socialist spending.

Z71bill
10-21-2012, 10:47
If you raise taxes you're a leftist, socialist, fascist, communists and you're ignorant. The next President will raise your taxes because he has too. Do you want the working class and middle class to bear the bulk of the tax increases, like they have since Reagan, or do you want to ultra rich to bear the bulk of the burden?

The taxes Obama wants on the rich will generate about $50 billion in added revenue.

My guess is he will want to spend it - not use it to reduce the deficit.

But where is the other $950 billion going to come from?

We must cut spending -

BTW

Tax collections have gone up A LOT

Last year Regan was in office total federal revenue was $909 billion - they spent $1.06 trillion

Now we collect $2.5 trillion - a 175% increase in taxes

and spend $3.8 trillion a 259% increase.

-------------------

You have your facts mixed up --

The share of taxes paid by the "rich" has increased -

Rich pay a higher % of their income - and also pay a greater % of total taxes - these are facts - go look it up.

The political spin of the Bush tax cuts goes like this -

The rich got $50,000 tax cuts and the poor guy only got a $2,000 cut.

So before the rich guy paid $350,000 in taxes - now he pays $300,000.

The lower income guy paid $6,000 before - now they pay $4,000. (including payroll taxes).

:dunno:

certifiedfunds
10-21-2012, 10:54
The taxes Obama wants on the rich will generate about $50 billion in added revenue.

My guess is he will want to spend it - not use it to reduce the deficit.

But where is the other $950 billion going to come from?

We must cut spending -

BTW

Tax collections have gone up A LOT

Last year Regan was in office total federal revenue was $909 billion - they spent $1.06 trillion

Now we collect $2.5 trillion - a 175% increase in taxes

and spend $3.8 trillion a 259% increase.

-------------------

You have your facts mixed up --

The share of taxes paid by the "rich" has increased -

Rich pay a higher % of their income - and also pay a greater % of total taxes - these are facts - go look it up.

The political spin of the Bush tax cuts goes like this -

The rich got $50,000 tax cuts and the poor guy only got a $2,000 cut.

So before the rich guy paid $350,000 in taxes - now he pays $300,000.

The lower income guy paid $6,000 before - now they pay $4,000. (including payroll taxes).

:dunno:

I think most folks would define$50,000, married,2 kids as middle class.

That guy pays negligible to nothing in federal income taxes.

Z71bill
10-21-2012, 11:52
I think most folks would define$50,000, married,2 kids as middle class.

That guy pays negligible to nothing in federal income taxes.

But pays 7+K in payroll taxes (if you count the tax paid by the employer)

I was including payroll taxes - both what the employee pays & what is paid by the employer.

Liberals need to decide -

Do you want the taxes collected as payroll taxes - to be counted like general revenue - so it is "counted just like income taxes" in the total taxes a person pays (Buffet rule BS)

OR

Do you want social security and medicare to be considered a YOU PAY FOR IT sort of like a retirement plan:upeyes:- so it is not welfare for old people.

IMHO liberals want it BOTH ways -

I see it more like an income tax - and that makes social security welfare - so adjust the tax structure to change the rates so they collect the same amount of revenue as the current split (income tax & payroll taxes) and all of a sudden social security is just another program funded by general revenue - and the payments people get from social security when they hit the magic age of entitlement are welfare.