It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Social Security the next thing to be cut or taken away?

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
step 1 tax all families who have more than 2 children, Mormons your screwed I know tough.

with 42% of the working age Americans unemployed no one should be allowed to make those numbers purposely worse as they do people are forced to work for lower wages from competition which leads to higher numbers of tax exempt poverty stricken people which puts more strain on the people who pay into the system

step 2 repeal all tax exemptions for foreign labor

step 3 10% flat tax and lets get rid of these programs all together, invest your own money - lol and ruin the .gov's honey pot never going to happen.

done.




posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by circuitsports
step 3 10% flat tax and lets get rid of these programs all together, invest your own money - lol and ruin the .gov's honey pot never going to happen.
done.


This is a ridiculous notion. There is a huge discrepancy between 10% of $35,000 and 10% of $10,000,000? Again, the middle class would get slammed and the top 2% would continue living large off of the backs of everyday Americans.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
i read this and it sickens me to the bone , i am 45 and have busted my butt since i was 17 working and improving my life and educating myself and have found myself in a decent position . to think that all the thousands of dollars i have paid in will be gone when i am old enough to retire really sux , on top of the thousands i have put in my 401 , . i check it daily online and its doing well , but as we all know and , i have suspected for awhile the markets are a sham and manipulated also . but i do it anyway .hoping against hope that when i am 59 and a half i can draw it out and buy a travel trailer and truck and travel. but the way it looks now that will probably never happen as some manmade disaster will befall all of us . as you can see im pessimistic lately and for good reason . it seems we are living a lie and everything we have worked for will disappear in the blink of and eye and we will be reduced to beggars and thieves . i dont reallly care for myself , its my family i worry about , they will probably ...... definitly never know ....... the good time i have experienced as a young person .............sorry to be so depressing but its all soo true



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If you didn't pay into social security. You don't get anything out of it.

Simple
As
That

Social security is the government FORCING us to to pay for their poor voter slush fund. I'd much rather have the money I put into social security every check invested in my 401k or other's of my own choosing. Some people refuse to plan for retirement? # them. Fiscal responsibility.

If they're going to do social security then at the bare minimum you can only pay people who have paid into it. There's no wonder we're at a 45 million a year shortfall. All I know is these thousands of dollars I'm paying into Social security I'll NEVER SEE AGAIN. Because Social security won't last until I retire.

Oh oh but but think of all the poor and sick people who need it!

No, # them. I have my own family, health, and well being to look after. You don't deserve my money for doing nothing.



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by alyoshablue
 


1st i have to retract my last post " Im done here."

To oblige your opening statement ..,(and your 2nd is useless!!!) Yes "privatized".. would be the ONLY way...if it was "privatized" then... noone could touch it..(regauards to your source... FU) kinda like a savings account.... capiche??.. noone, not even our government could tap it. it was meant for us who pay into it and only us..and if it was privatized such as... we wouldnt have corrupt civilian sucking and government sucking belowe the pond scum that eats fish feces taking OUR $$$$!!!!!!! OP states she can only recieve $695.... and she' hopes' for a 2% -5% increase???? what???? BS BS... how long she been paying into ss??... she expects "us" as citizens to provide her life??? BS what about me???,and the deserving!!!!!! and whoever else is struggling..????if i was disabeled,(in which i could prove i am...anyone can...), even tho im NOT, because i choose to be from my last SS statement.. ( last week)... i would recieve $1209 a month... so... for her to say she needs more????.... only comes outta YOUR pocket and mine... To boot THE OP "works for almost half her income a month!!!! ( quoting her 40%))... ya know what... im not even sorry..... ive worked with people who have had cancer... undergone kemo... and still WORKED 40, 50 60 hours week!! most have died... few have not!!! ya they had "depression, lights hurt their eyes, their immune system was weak" did they stop and say hey??? "IM DISABELD"........ the answer is not no... BUT SUCK NO!!!... get over your pathethic ignorant selves of the backer and the OP...


dont get me wrong... i sympathize with her conditions.. i wish her the best!!! and a long loving, happy life.....


just dont kill the rest of us...


and ... RockPuck... as u can clearly see.. we wear the same glasses...



PS.. im not left.... im not right.... im not anything you sheeple think....



IM ME!!!!! GET USE TO IT!!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by enigma91
 


Wow - You don't seem to appreciate the concept of living in a society.


As I read from another commenter on the Internet:

Ever wonder why "rising tide lifts all boats" is only used when primary beneficiaries are the rich, but when the beneficiaries are the poor, it's "socialism"...



posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by dreamseeker
 


I knew for some reason I was not wrong to put "disabilities" in quotations.

Being an anxious, sad, sickly individual does not mean you deserve a life of retirement living off the wages of everyone else. A leech on the system, its people like you who take money from the elderly, who the system is for.

Get an at home job, you obviously have not even tried to look.. unless being sad prevents you from typing? Ohhhh wait... you're typing now..

Depression = disabled.. what a crock of *SNIP*

AND HAVE THE NERVE TO ASK HARD WORKING PEOPLE TO PAY 10% MORE IN TAXES, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?
edit on 1/27/2011 by Rockpuck because: i needed to rant at the leecher a lil more

edit on Thu Jan 27 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.


Dang, that's cold. If he's got autoimmune disease, that's serious stuff right there. There's a lot of mindless spending in government, but social security isn't one of them in my opinion. He's working, and social security doesn't pay very much, so I don't see an issue here. There's plenty of lazy jackasses on Welfare who deserve the funds far less. At least it sounds like he's making an effort.

The fact that we're paying so much in taxes isn't his fault. It's our Government mismanaging our money. I"m pretty upset about it. I live in California, and we're taxed to death here. 10% income tax, 11% sales tax, property taxes through the roof, I could go on and on about how much we pay in taxes every day. I could talk about our politicians spending our tax money on hookers, expensive dinners and trips around the world. I could talk about them charging us to get their suits dry-cleaned, or paying for $2,200.00 a month apartments in the city. I could talk about the $200,000.00 office remodeling, or the $250,000 - $600,000.00 a year salaries. How about the fat pensions that pay close to what they were earning while they were still in office? How about the $50,000.00 - $60,000.00 we spend on each prisoner per year? The list is endless. I don't think I'm upset with the guy collecting social security. I'm upset with all the wasteful spending in all the other places where it doesn't belong.

I'm sorry, but I think your aggression is misplaced.



posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Like most people I'm angry about the obvious waste and fraud in SSDI and no better examples of it than the fatties and drunks, crazies and layabouts, that support a multitude of addictions with it. However I do not begrudge a safety net for people who are genuinely disabled, after all, that's the reason we all buy insurance.

Nor do I object to SS payments to the old folks as many of them have neither the income nor the ability to continue to work in old age. We all pay into it and the deal in return is that "something is there when/if we need it. Nobody is getting rich off SS or SSDI and nobody deserves to work until they die.

It's common in countries that lack a social net to see old folks dropped off on the street in the morning to sit against a wall, or on a corner all day, with a sign that begs for money. It's not a pretty sight and nothing I want for my aged parents, or for myself.

However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.

These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Social Security is in such bad shape now because its paying for all the disabled from the workforce.

Companies have it easy by dumping there disabled and toxic exposed workers on the government and never having to pay for there crimes against there ex-workforce.

There are many companies that at the first sign of a worker becoming disabled will start looking for a way to fire them.
Not looking for a way to help them but to get them off the company payroll before they have to pay for a company caused injusy or illness.

I am a member of a forum on sarcoidosis and we get a least two new people from the medical field a month that are about to lose there jobs because they are becoming disabled with sarcoidosis.

These people work for hospitals that make it a point never to tell these employees that they have a illness that is likely caused by there work and would be covered under workmans comp.
The rates of people working in the medical field getting sarcoidosis are 7.5% higher than the general public.
This is from a US national institute of health publication
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

thorax.bmj.com...

The top three job fields of people with sarcoidosis are (1) people that work in the medical field (nurses EMTs medical Lab workers) (2) firefighters and (3) US navy personal.

I have sarcoidosis and i have worked in all three of these.
I was a firefighter EMT and and Ex Navy.

How many out there are disabled from a job and now are on SS.

There are millions out there on SSD that the government is paying that should be payed by the companys that caused the problem.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I have Cystic Fibrosis i own a small farm and sell cattle for a liveing and i do farm chores and im not suppose to even do that cuz everything i touch makes me sick even being around people.. i have lived longer then the dr's thought possible what i have is terminal now im so sick i cant do these chores so i have applyed for SSDI ..I dont feel like what im doing is a bad thing there is alot of us out there that just cant work were not all trying to get a free ride..I wish i didnt have to do this it pains me to take a hand out but some of us dont have a choice..just my 2 cents



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.

These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content


I partly agree with you, but I have reasons to disagree as well. I agree that if people have the means to retire comfortably without dipping into SS, then maybe (on charitable grounds) they should leave it for those who need it more... HOWEVER... even if you are prepared for your retirement and you don't need SS to survive, you still paid into it your entire working life, and that is money you are entitled to. Nobody should be able to tell you "Well, you prepared for your retirement, so we're going to take your SS and give it to someone who didn't prepare like they were supposed to". That's not a very fair thing to do to somebody, just because they had the foresight to prepare. It's almost a punishment for having done what everyone else was supposed to do in the first place.

The Government severely mismanages the money that we put into SS, and end up giving us far less of it than what we put in. If they gave people all the money they put in during their working life, we wouldn't have senior citizens living off dog or cat food. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I look at it.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.

These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content


I partly agree with you, but I have reasons to disagree as well. I agree that if people have the means to retire comfortably without dipping into SS, then maybe (on charitable grounds) they should leave it for those who need it more... HOWEVER... even if you are prepared for your retirement and you don't need SS to survive, you still paid into it your entire working life, and that is money you are entitled to. Nobody should be able to tell you "Well, you prepared for your retirement, so we're going to take your SS and give it to someone who didn't prepare like they were supposed to". That's not a very fair thing to do to somebody, just because they had the foresight to prepare. It's almost a punishment for having done what everyone else was supposed to do in the first place.

The Government severely mismanages the money that we put into SS, and end up giving us far less of it than what we put in. If they gave people all the money they put in during their working life, we wouldn't have senior citizens living off dog or cat food. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I look at it.



I do think you're wrong. If cuts are to be made to save Social Security for everyone, then somebody must bite the bullet. Realistically who better to start chewing than the wealthy that have no real need, especially when cuts will come to poor retirees and disabled as well; and they will be hit very hard by them.

"Charity" has nothing to do with reality. Social Security and SSDI are insurance programs and all insurance is, and should be, paid based on true "need" and not on the amount of money paid for the premiums. Possibly you've confused SS with the concepts of a 401k or similar private investment schemes, which it is not. It's a "safety net" just like any insurance.

One important thing to always remember is that life is not based on any concept of "fairness" that we'd recognize, and whether the government "mismanages" money and programs isn't even a small consideration to the old, the poor and the disabled, and isn't the point when one falls into those groups. You'll see the point when your time comes as it may at any time. .
edit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add clifying content

edit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add context



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowman9364
reply to post by alyoshablue
 


To oblige your opening statement ..,(and your 2nd is useless!!!) Yes "privatized".. would be the ONLY way...if it was "privatized" then... noone could touch it..(regauards to your source... FU) kinda like a savings account.... capiche??.. noone, not even our government could tap it.


Look, I didn't realize this could be a touchy subject. Let me be clear here, I was not attacking you. Further my hyperlink (aka source) was referencing my first point, which is that SS is bankrupt, for the very reasons you have put forth.

Now with respect to privatizing, I also want to be clear, because what you are calling privatizing is very different from what is being used in the MSM today, and what others fully "think" privatizing to be. Privatizing, in the MSM, is as I described in my second point and what certain elected officials are trying to sell to the US populace. I am not being semantical here with your words, only pointing that out, come 2012, this could very well be a hot topic and the word, privatizing, will be what I stated in my second point, and not as you are describing it.

I agree with you in the sense of what you are saying, however, here are the challenges one faces:

1. If you take your money and put it in a bank, the bank can fail (as a result of fractional reserve policy). While some would argue that the FDIC would back the money up, that is true until the FDIC runs out of money. Currently, there are about 3 banks a week defaulting in the United States, per week. Result: Savings Gone.

2. Let's say you put your money in a bank and your bank doesn't fail. Having your money in a bank account will yield you no net interest with respect to inflation - your money actually declines in purchasing power over time. Eventually, as has been the case for the last 90 years, your dollar value will lose its purchasing power. Currently, the US dollar has lost 95% of its purchasing power since the inception of the Central Bank in 1913. In short time, the dollar value of your saving will be zero. Result: Savings Gone.

3. Let's say you put your money under your pillow. This is the equivalent of putting it in a bank. Earns no interest and will be devalued by inflation. Result: Savings Gone.

4. Let's say you put it in an investment vehicle such as described in my earlier post. Markets crash and you have no more money. Result: Savings Gone.

5. Let's say you put it into commodities. Seems to be valid, since we all use the stuff. The problem here is that ultimately, who has your physical money? You don't. In the case of precious metals, even if you had the physical, what would stop the government from taking that to pay back their debt? They did that in 1933. Result: Savings Gone.

So, how can you set aside the money in a savings account that can't be touched? Ultimately, you can't, under the current situation.



it was meant for us who pay into it and only us..and if it was privatized such as... we wouldnt have corrupt civilian sucking and government sucking belowe the pond scum that eats fish feces taking OUR $$$$!!!!!!!


I totally agree that only those that pay into it should benefit from it. I don't know how this even works, to the extent if an individual can get paid more than what they put in (i.e. by being disabled, etc.). To me, it would not matter if someone took their share early, up to the point in which they exhausted their contribution. Otherwise, I share your frustration. The fact that one would receive more than their contribution, just goes to show the fraud it is.


OP states she can only recieve $695.... and she' hopes' for a 2% -5% increase???? what???? BS BS... how long she been paying into ss??... she expects "us" as citizens to provide her life??? BS what about me???,and the deserving!!!!!! and whoever else is struggling..????if i was disabeled,(in which i could prove i am...anyone can...), even tho im NOT, because i choose to be from my last SS statement.. ( last week)... i would recieve $1209 a month... so... for her to say she needs more????.... only comes outta YOUR pocket and mine... To boot THE OP "works for almost half her income a month!!!! ( quoting her 40%))... ya know what... im not even sorry..... ive worked with people who have had cancer... undergone kemo... and still WORKED 40, 50 60 hours week!! most have died... few have not!!! ya they had "depression, lights hurt their eyes, their immune system was weak" did they stop and say hey??? "IM DISABELD"........ the answer is not no... BUT SUCK NO!!!... get over your pathethic ignorant selves of the backer and the OP...


I was not backing the OP, here, merely showing the fault of the current SS system and the challenges present when trying to privatize it, which ultimately is the fault of the current FIAT currency system. I share your frustration. The system will be long gone by the time I retire. I don't include SS in my long term planning for these very reasons. Nonetheless, that doesn't prevent what is going on currently and the points you bring up. From a historical perspective, snowman9364, SS was never intended to succeed. It was really a way for the government to take the peoples money and ultimately bankrupt the country. Many politicos and the companies they handed the money to got rich and in the process took care of a few retired and disabled people, however, the debt will be on us.

I have been searching for a viable alternative to SS, however, all these plans refer to the "market," which at this point in time is totally corrupt. For there to be a meaningful method to provide security for people at the age of retirement or otherwise, the corrupt foundation (i.e. money system, politicians, thieves, etc.), needs to be abolished and a new system needs to be created. Maybe that is where we are heading with all these revolutions.

For those that have the time, a nice little video on this subject for you:

edit on 30-1-2011 by alyoshablue because: typos



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brown Bear

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by Brown Bear
However, I am more disgusted to personally know (and often see) retirees (senior citizens) with substantial assets, fancy new cars, and big investment incomes still able to collect SS checks, and thus, the obvious first solution to saving SS is to establish a "means test" whereby those who realistically don't need it don't get it... regardless.

These days, the SS safety net is, in many ways, the only program holding our society together and without it the only alternatives for the desperate, hopeless, and elderly is crime or slow death. The "let them eat crackers and cat food" philosophy is already the norm for too many, just as is freezing in the winter.
edit on 29-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add content


I partly agree with you, but I have reasons to disagree as well. I agree that if people have the means to retire comfortably without dipping into SS, then maybe (on charitable grounds) they should leave it for those who need it more... HOWEVER... even if you are prepared for your retirement and you don't need SS to survive, you still paid into it your entire working life, and that is money you are entitled to. Nobody should be able to tell you "Well, you prepared for your retirement, so we're going to take your SS and give it to someone who didn't prepare like they were supposed to". That's not a very fair thing to do to somebody, just because they had the foresight to prepare. It's almost a punishment for having done what everyone else was supposed to do in the first place.

The Government severely mismanages the money that we put into SS, and end up giving us far less of it than what we put in. If they gave people all the money they put in during their working life, we wouldn't have senior citizens living off dog or cat food. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I look at it.



I do think you're wrong. If cuts are to be made to save Social Security for everyone, then somebody must bite the bullet. Realistically who better to start chewing than the wealthy that have no real need, especially when cuts will come to poor retirees and disabled as well; and they will be hit very hard by them.

"Charity" has nothing to do with reality. Social Security and SSDI are insurance programs and all insurance is, and should be, paid based on true "need" and not on the amount of money paid for the premiums. Possibly you've confused SS with the concepts of a 401k or similar private investment schemes, which it is not. It's a "safety net" just like any insurance.

One important thing to always remember is that life is not based on any concept of "fairness" that we'd recognize, and whether the government "mismanages" money and programs isn't even a small consideration to the old, the poor and the disabled, and isn't the point when one falls into those groups. You'll see the point when your time comes as it may at any time. .
edit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add clifying content

edit on 30-1-2011 by Brown Bear because: add context


Let me ask you this another way. Would you pay into the system all your life if you knew that at the end you might not even receive any benefits from it? If I started off poor in life and somehow managed to scrape up a nice amount of money by the age of 65, and then was told that even though I paid into the system, the Government decided that I don't need it, knowing this.... would you have wanted to pay into it?

The Government takes a nice cut out of my paycheck every month, which goes toward SS. If I could foresee my future, and if I could see that I would be able to prepare for my retirement and put together enough money to survive even without SS, maybe then I'd decide I don't want to pay into it all my life, and I would much rather keep that money in the bank. If I knew that I would never benefit from it in the future, I would be pretty upset that I had to barely scrape by in my 20s, 30s and 40s, having money taken away from me, when I could have used it to feed my family or whatever else.

I'm all for helping the elderly and those who truly cannot take care of themselves, but I myself don't like being robbed..... which is what's happening with the SS right now. The Government collects our money, steals from it, and then when it's time for you to collect it, there's not enough in there. Why? Because they mismanaged it and didn't use it the way it was meant to be used.

If you had it your way, it sounds to me like you would take it away from me by force, just because somehow I managed to prepare enough to survive on in my retirement. How about just giving people the option of giving it up so that somebody else could have more? If I were wealthy enough and felt like I don't need it, I'd give it up voluntarily.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
There are two issues to this discussion. The first, is the corrupt system of SS and how it is really a scam that few will benefit from. Second, is that people think they can do better long term on their own. I would favor the second point, however, would suggest that people realize the bigger picture ... whatever you do with you FIAT money, you are screwed. Coming out of the Davos meetings this weekend, this article and video just confirms my earlier post:

Davos Quote:

Recently, Bank of England (BOE) head Mervyn King came out with a very surprising warning to his compatriots, accompanied with an apology that our own Ben Bernanke will never offer, namely: "I sympathise completely with savers and those who behaved prudently now find themselves among the biggest losers from this crisis." Of course, the US central bank believes it has completed its third mandate job now that the US stock market, not to mention commodities, are starting to be reminiscent of the parabolic phase of the Harare stock market.


Video explaining why:

Think this is a fluke? Yeah, right.
edit on 1-2-2011 by alyoshablue because: typos



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by gougitousakusha

Originally posted by Rockpuck
People survived before ss was around, they'd suck it up and get along just fine without it in the future.


a lot of elderly in japan commit suicide because they dont have a source of income and only take away from their family. i wouldn't be surprised if taking away social security in america would have a similar effect.


The elderly provide an unappreciated source of knowledge and companionship. They do not "only take away from their family."



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by trailertrash
reply to post by dreamseeker
 



Boy talk about unbelievable.... The republicans want to do away with social security so what do they do at election time? They talk about such things as "return to contitution", "free markets" "christian values" etc etc etc and how terrible the liberals are. Then after they get elected those things are not heard any more. Instead we hear about "austerity" which is code for "paying for the war" and social security has to be zapped because it's like welfare (which it is not).

What I want to know is simply how can any sane middle or lower class American even consider voting republican when they have to know that their potential life line to a secure retirement is what they are voting against. This is most amazing. If it wasn't happening I wouldn't believe it.


I really have to wonder about so called Christian values.

When Jesus walked the earth, He used a small amount of food and used it to feed thousands of people. I did not, however, read where He asked them about their social status so that He could pick and choose who ate. He fed everyone, both rich and poor.

Today's Christians want to beat the poor over the head with their bible scriptures and deprive them of every little scrap of food because they don't believe the poor works hard enough to be deserving of food.

And since these people are a lot of today's employers, it is no wonder that so many on welfare are unable to obtain gainful employment. Today's employers view the unemployed as slothful, lazy leeches. Why would they want to hire a group of people that have been dehumanized like that? What true opportunity do they have when even the employers at McDonalds look down on them as the "undeserving poor" and don't want trash like that working for them?

And are the bankers really going to give a business loan to those on welfare so that they can start up their own business? I think not. The only way they can start up their own business is often via illegal means because the regulations require so much and their dwellings are probably not zoned to conduct business. Then they risk getting caught and ending up in even more hot water!

Society is set up where those in the lower class have to face too many hurtles oftentimes to legally succeed.

And these people only want to go by the constitution when it suits them. During my recent court problems, the judge overseeing the case literally told me, in front of everyone in the courtroom, that she did not care about my constitutional rights. When I mentioned about it to some of them, they did not come to my side. Instead, I was bashed for being poor and having received welfare. I had absolutely zero people come to my defense. I have been left all along to deal with the government denying me any rights or dignity. I have asked them then, since I don't have any constitutional rights, why should they? They respond by accusing me of having an entitlement mentality. They are such hypocrites! If what had happened to me happened to someone in their social class, they'd be all up in arms, demanding justice. When it happens to the poor, the poor are just getting what they deserve in life. The poor are not 'entitled' to the same rights as the middle class.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by dreamseeker
reply to post by snowman9364
 


I only get $695 a month. It is not enough to live on. That is not even minuim wage. I have to work regardless. I work from home answering phones. There are rules set out by social security and I go by those. I am doing nothing wrong by collecting my benefits are working.


The way it works is for every $2 you make the drop $1 from your SSI check. If you do the math you will do a little beter than break even. Ok here goes.
SSI=$700 per month
Extra income=$300 per month
$300/2=$150 dropped from SSI check
SSI $700 - $150 dropped= $550 for updated SSI check
Updated SSI check =$550 plus the $300 from the extra income =$850 total
You made $300 extra but in the end out came out ahead by $150.

How do I know this? I have more than a few old friends that collect SSI and still have to work

edit on 1/27/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling


I don't think they are collecting SSI. Probably the regular disability.

I am on SSI and get the maximum benefit of $674/month. If I make $50/month, for example, $20/month is disregarded and then $30 gets taken out of the $674.

When they were counting the alimony against me (that he wasn't even paying), then they disregarded the $20/month, but deducted the remaining $80/month (that I wasn't actually even getting) from the $674. It took a couple months to finally convince them that I wasn't getting the court ordered alimony so that they finally gave me the whole amount in SSI.

SSI is for the poor disabled who didn't pay enough credits in to get the regular disability.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
After revisiting this thread I can't believe anyone would ever attack me and I say I don't deserve my disablity money. I have worked 20 years of my life and still work. We all have to depend on something whether it be a job or disablity. I am ashamed of the people who believe disablity is welfare. This post is proving my point that social security is under attack by not only the government but selfish people.
It is selfish to sit and judge me when I have had a very hard life. My dad was controlling, my mom nagged me a lot, I took care of 3 sisters since the age of 12. I have been working since 12 years old through babysitting and then at 15 through Worlds of fun and Fast food resturants. I have worked every low paying job you could imagine at minium wage 50 hours per week. I have been laid off , fired and quite jobs. I have delivered pizzas, worked at day cares,(taking care of 8 infants all by myself.) getting sick 4 days a week, worked in retail where you stand on your feet for 5 hours straight with a 30 minute lunch break, I have been a supervisor twice and have had 2 jobs before. I have worked 50 hours, 2 jobs only to come home to have to dishes at my dads house. I have listened to my dad yell and chase my mom around the house over something so small.
My dad yelled at me and hit me. There have been times in my life where I have gone for days without food. I once had a free coupon for pizza and said I would pay the tip yet they refused to delivery to me it was christmas eve. I have overcome so many things and I am proud of where I am now. Sure I may not make $50K per year nor work 50 hours a week but I think I am very valuable. Shame on those who think I made this post only to bicker back and forth. Shame on those who blame me for a problem I did NOt create. YOU are part of the problem.(the people who judge).
By the way I have explained many times I ALSO have a psychical problem. I have an anti-body/immune deficincy. My parents were told I would not make to 30 because they thought I had csytic fiborsis. I can't be around people as much because the shots have steriods in them and I already took them for 10+ years of my life. If I take them too much longer I can end up with even more health problems. My depression stemmed from stress and my psychical illness. My depreesion is not too bad right now. People really need to read more.
edit on 25-7-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2011 by dreamseeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
BY the way I have scarfcied a lot. I don't have cable and just have a cheap cell phone that I put minutes on. I dont go to fancy resturants, movies and it took me 10 years to get everything I have. My car is 7 years old and needs to be repaired. I am willing to scarfice the luxeries in life but not the necessaties!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join