OT: 1 Trillion explained

[Jeff Matthews]

I am on a roll here....

"Payments were made to 10.1 million people aged 18–64 on the basis of their own disability."

http://www.ultimatedisabilityguide.com/statistics.html

Now, go back to the census figures. That age group consists of 186 million people. 1 in 18 working age people receive SSDI benefits. Do you still think there's not a lazy underclass faking it? Why from 1 in 77 to 1 in 18? Because they keep trying until they get approved, and then, they stay on the dole as long as they can.

Here's what that costs us in dollars:

"$91.3 billion was paid by SSDI to all disabled workers in 2007; this is more than twice the $43.5 billion of disability payments paid in 1998."

http://www.disabilitycanhappen.org/news/CDA_LTD_Claims_Survey_2007.asp

[LarryC]

Yes, due to SS disabilty, for one thing, because it is very, very abused. "Go see doc so-and-so. If you tell him your back hurts, he'll get you qualified." There's a ton of that going on. And yes, I do believe that the income tax credit (which so happens to be 6.2% of earnings) will have the very effect I stated. I might go as far as to see if I can find where people qualify for more than they paid in. Stay tuned....

Social Security disability (the "D" in OASDI) requires a long, drawn-out and difficult process to qualify for it. Few objective analysts believe it is abused, let alone "very, very" abused. Your quoted example is wildly imaginary, at least for SS's disability program. (Can't speak for state SSI disability determinations.) Again, the income tax credit idea is only a fantasy proposal.

It's always been true that Social Security has paid individuals more over time than they paid in. That's the nature of the program, and it gives recipients a semblance of keeping up with income rather than inflation increases.

[LarryC]

Okay, here you go.... The quickest source, but pretty reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Quotes taken from the article:

"In October 1972, a $5 billion piece of Social Security legislation was enacted which expanded the Social Security program. For example, minimum monthly benefits of individuals employed in low income positions for at least 30 years were raised. Increases were also made to the pensions of 3.8 million widows and dependent widowers."

So, there's a minimum, regardless of whether a person pays in enough to carry his/her load.

Correct read (something I hadn't been aware of). This addressed the fact I noted earlier that monthly payment amounts depend on income and taxes paid in during working years. Beneficiaries whose 40 quarters/10 years of taxes paid in were based on very low incomes would have had very low payments after retirement (or SS disability determination). Congress decided there should be a minimum payment in those cases. So?

"These amendments also established the Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Immigrants who had never paid into the system became eligible for SSI benefits when they reached age 65. SSI is not a Social Security benefit, but a welfare program, because the elderly and disabled poor are entitled to SSI regardless of work history. Likewise, SSI is not an entitlement, because there is no right to SSI payments.

People who never paid in at all get SSI.

This is stark confusion on your part between Social Security, an earned payment based on paying in, and welfare, whose recipients have NEVER paid in. This paragraph says exactly that. So of course SSI recipients haven't "paid in." So?

"Disability determination at the Social Security Administration has created the largest system of administrative courts in the United States."

Lots of "disabled" people out there. In fact, there are lots and lots!

Yes, there are. You're assuming that DI beneficiaries are not disabled and don't deserve their payments. The intensive and drawn-out process very likely minimizes that.

Here's the discussion on SSDI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security_disability

"In 2006, there were 2,532,264 applications for SSDI."

Those were applications. There were a total of 7.8 million DI beneficiaries in 2006.

Now, that's a lot of people who are disabled and can't work. 2.5 million of our 300 million population. That would be roughly 1 in 100 (a bit less), except for one thing - the kids that are too young. I wonder what our population is w/o counting the kids. So let's see..... There are 82 million Americans 19 or under. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=PEP_2007_EST&-SubjectID=15137958&-_lang=en&-mt_name=PEP_2007_EST_G2007_T006_2007&-format=&-CONTEXT=dt 302 million, less the 82 million kids, leaves 222 million. So, 1 in 100 sign up for SSDI EVERY YEAR - not just once in a lifetime. EVERY YEAR, 1 in 200 goes on SSDI (see next quote and do the math). That, my friend, is huge! BUT WAIT!!!!! Let's get more accurate. We should exclude the presumably retired. There are about 36 million Americans 65 and over. Let's take them out of the 222 million we left off with after deducting the kids. That leaves 186 million. 2.5 million of our 186 million working age Americans sign up every year. That's 1.3% or 1 for every 77. 1 for every 77 EACH AND EVERY YEAR! I bet you did not realize that for every 77 people you see, 1 has signed up for SSDI - and not just at some point in his/her life, BUT THIS YEAR!. That's incredible! Where do they hide? The problem is we don't perceive it because we live in the wrong neighborhoods. Here's the next quote from the wiki SSDI article:

"Nationwide statistics provided by the SSA in 2005 stated that 52 percent of all SSDI applications are ultimately approved."

You got a 50/50 chance if you want to try. I suppose if you try twice, you're almost a shoe-in.

Wrong interpretation -- it says "ultimately." SSDI (Social Security disability insurance) is not an annual determination, and people don't just "sign up" and it certainly isn't a shoe-in. There is also a periodic redetermination process, so it's not a life-long benefit unlike Old Age Insurance. Anyway, 7.8 million is 2.6% of our population. And, yes, the number of disabled is higher than we would like. So, you are blaming people for being disabled?

This time, my comments are inserted above in bold italic.

[Jeff Matthews]

Yes, due to SS disabilty, for one thing, because it is very, very abused. "Go see doc so-and-so. If you tell him your back hurts, he'll get you qualified." There's a ton of that going on. And yes, I do believe that the income tax credit (which so happens to be 6.2% of earnings) will have the very effect I stated. I might go as far as to see if I can find where people qualify for more than they paid in. Stay tuned....

Social Security disability (the "D" in OASDI) requires a long, drawn-out and difficult process to qualify for it. Few objective analysts believe it is abused, let alone "very, very" abused. Your quoted example is wildly imaginary, at least for SS's disability program. (Can't speak for state SSI disability determinations.) Again, the income tax credit idea is only a fantasy proposal.

It's always been true that Social Security has paid individuals more over time than they paid in. That's the nature of the program, and it gives recipients a semblance of keeping up with income rather than inflation increases.

I am not sure why you say you can speak on the "D" part of OASDI, but not the SSI disability determinations. Regardless, I know that disability benefits are obtained by the non-disabled. Guess who signs them up to help them process their claims and get backpay and forward pay? Lawyers. I know one who does this full-time. It ain't pretty. For once, I will claim that your suggestion that I am guessing around and in "fantasy land" is pure poppycock and you have no idea yourself.

Also, the math does not come to 2.6% if you do it fairly. First, there were 7.6 million recipients in 2006. Did you miss the next post (the last in the 3rd page) where there were 10.1 million recipients in 2007? That's about a 50% increase.

I alos gave you the census numbers to exclude children and the retired. They account for a bit under half of our population. There are 186 million working age Americans. 10.1 million/186 million is roughly 1 in 18. That's not 2.6%. It is about 5.5%.

Now, do you really, truly and honestly believe 1 in 18 working age Americans is disabled to the extent they cannot work?

[Jeff Matthews]

Okay, here you go.... The quickest source, but pretty reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Quotes taken from the article:

"In October 1972, a $5 billion piece of Social Security legislation was enacted which expanded the Social Security program. For example, minimum monthly benefits of individuals employed in low income positions for at least 30 years were raised. Increases were also made to the pensions of 3.8 million widows and dependent widowers."

So, there's a minimum, regardless of whether a person pays in enough to carry his/her load.

Correct read (something I hadn't been aware of). This addressed the fact I noted earlier that monthly payment amounts depend on income and taxes paid in during working years. Beneficiaries whose 40 quarters/10 years of taxes paid in were based on very low incomes would have had very low payments after retirement (or SS disability determination). Congress decided there should be a minimum payment in those cases. So?

So, that means I was right. The plan calls for lifting the caps so the rich can pay in. At the same time, it calls for federal income tax credits to the poor, which credits just happen to be 6.2% of the first $8100 of their income. That, my friend, is purey and simply creating a greater redistribution program under FICA...... which was something you said I was mistaken on. Now, you come to admit I was not mistaken, but that the plan has no chance. And to top it off, once you're shown to be mistaken as to how SS works, your response is "so?". The only thing I can think of is that you tried to convince me there was no form of redistribution. Now that it has turned to "so?," it becomes apparent you are in favor of redistribution. I won't take your right to have an opinion from you, and I respect it. But at least we get to see the real motivation. I still maintain there should be no increased redistribution until we get the slobs and fakers off the dole. Otherwise, it's just a waste of my diligence.... and presumably, yours. Don't you feel entitled to keep as much as you can of what you work for? Shouldn't you be ready to complain when your money is taken from you and given to unmotivated slobs who would rather take your money than work for their own? Maybe not, and you're just a real nice guy. Maybe I'm just a mean tird and expect more from slobs than I should.

This time, my comments are inserted above in bold italic.

And mine are just after yours, but underlined, too. As you can see, I think it is morally wrong to take money from those who work for it and give it to those who don't want to work and would rather just take yours. 1 in 18 working age Americans being too disabled to work just does not pass the smell test. [bs] If the number was more like 1 in 250, I might be able to "buy" it. I am ready to admit there are some on the program who truly need the help. Just not 1 in 18. [N]

[Jeff Matthews]

Yes, I agree the lawyers are enablers, but I don't think it's a defense to say "the lawyer made me do it!" Let's be real.

[Jeff Matthews]

No. Unfortunately, I do not. But let's analogize to a charity. Suppose John Doe, President of the <pick your favorite> charity was discovered to have been swindling more than 80% of the proceeds received from donations. Would you continue to give to that charity if either (1) Mr. Doe was not terminated, or (2) there were no mechanisms in place to prevent his future theft and you knew he would continue to steal?

I assume you would be like most people and not continue to give because you knew your donations were not going where intended.

Now, you might say the SS administration is not stealing. Okay, let's deal with that.

Suppose, in our example, Mr. Doe was giving it away to unintended and undeserving recipients. You question Mr. Doe.... "Mr. Doe, 80% of our donations are being diverted to the undeserving!" Mr. Doe replies, "Yes, I know. But I can't figure out how to stop that."

Would you continue to donate to Mr. Doe's charity program when he admits he's throwing 80% away and can't do anything to stop throwing it away at that miserably high rate?

You might. But I wouldn't.

So, what is the difference here? You don't have a choice. They gov't. takes it under threat of force.

[Jeff Matthews]

Actually, many of those uber-Cons you mentioned are, I think, completely lacking in grace, obnoxious and arrogant. Some things they say are correct. Others, I just laugh at as being absurd.

Back on topic.... You are right to point out the great many other wastes. One thing you won't hear from me is a pitch to increase those, either. Notice, I never said those should be increased.

I am for reduction - across the board.

[Jeff Matthews]

Mark, I think you missed what I said in my prior post. I don't like any of the waste and corruption. Am I supposed to like the SSD waste because there is other waste out there, as well? Let's get real and not be pathetic. []

I don't see why you are so ready to overlook the fact that the underclass is enabled, expanded and perpetually made larger because of the ease of conning your way into the system. You might, under your philosophy, note that that's exactly what the rich want. They want the middle class to fund a system that keeps the poor down and allows the rich to get richer. And you want to perpetuate that system? It seems you would want to end it.

How would you end it? Would you keep the system in place and fund it with even more money so that even more can con their ways into it at the expense of the middle class? All you would be doing is allowing the underclass to expand itself.

If you've ever heard of the book, "The Millionaire Next Door," I suggest you read the Chapter entitled "Economic Outpatient Care." It is not directly on point in that its premise is slightly different. It notes that the vast majority of millionaires in America are first-generation millionaires. The children of these millionaires are less likely to be millionaires themselves. This is because their millionaire parents help them financially, by buying them cars, giving them downpayments for their homes, helping them out of so-called "binds," etc. They don't learn to help themselves. They make less effort to earn more. They take less care with their spending habits. This is real behavior. It applies to most anyone who gets something for nothing. The answer is to not have a vast system of "Economic Outpatient Care."

Even people in wheelchairs can work, Mark. Maybe they should re-think what qualifies as a disability, and for the rest, give them checks in exchange for work of some sort that is productive.

[JJkizak]

I find it amazing that at the end of the Democratic Clintonian era we had a 1 trillion surplus. Now at the end of the Bushonian era we have a 10 trillion deficit, where the Congress does nothing. What happened to the tax and spend Democrats? They all converted to Republicans. Like Eisenhower said, "Beware of the military industrial complex". Like congress said in the late 1960's, "We can't let all that extra money build up in the Social Security program so lets pass a law whereby we can temporarily spend the crap out of it". Like the flying saucer aliens said in 1947, "You have to even out the wealth in your world to prevent future economic strife", so we came up with NAFTA/CAFTA to enable industries to move to other countries to bust the Unions and the American middle class. Why else would you see 5 American Presidents walking hand in hand in a parade demonstrating for the passage of NAFTA? Working nicely. The rich get filthy rich and the middle class gets to be poor again, men working two jobs and the wife working one job with poverty in sight at every bend. Then the rich (banks, credit card people, medical insurance) duke the middle class again with obscene penalties and unregulated legal shenanigans to bust them down further to the super poor class. Amen.

JJK

[Jeff Matthews]

I find it amazing that at the end of the Democratic Clintonian era we had a 1 trillion surplus. Now at the end of the Bushonian era we have a 10 trillion deficit, where the Congress does nothing. What happened to the tax and spend Democrats? They all converted to Republicans. Like Eisenhower said, "Beware of the military industrial complex". Like congress said in the late 1960's, "We can't let all that extra money build up in the Social Security program so lets pass a law whereby we can temporarily spend the crap out of it". Like the flying saucer aliens said in 1947, "You have to even out the wealth in your world to prevent future economic strife", so we came up with NAFTA/CAFTA to enable industries to move to other countries to bust the Unions and the American middle class. Why else would you see 5 American Presidents walking hand in hand in a parade demonstrating for the passage of NAFTA? Working nicely. The rich get filthy rich and the middle class gets to be poor again, men working two jobs and the wife working one job with poverty in sight at every bend. Then the rich (banks, credit card people, medical insurance) duke the middle class again with obscene penalties and unregulated legal shenanigans to bust them down further to the super poor class. Amen.

JJK

That's right, and what you see happening with NAFTA and overseas outsourcing is itself a form of redistribution. If you want to see how it makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, study the social class structure of Mexico. You have rich and poor and a small middle class by comparison. All of these efforts work to our disadvantage to some extent because by joining in the "international program," we dilute our own middle class just as you said.

P.S. We did not have a $1 trillion surplus after Clinton. We still had a big national debt. We had a budget surplus of some amount (you can look it up), which meant the debt was not growing. Nonetheless, you are right in pointing out that after Clinton, the budget surplus turned deficit, and the debt grew astronomically.

[Jeff Matthews]

No, Mark, I am with you on some of the other issues as well. You and I depart on the idea of perpetuating a massive fund that is bilked by cons by actually increasing the amount available to be bilked. That is all.

You act as either (a) you are okay with it being bilked, or ( you don't believe it is being bilked. Seeing as your previous comments seem to acknowledge that "yes," since the stats show 1 in 18 working age Americans receives SSDI checks, I would say ( is not correct. So, why would you be okay with the fact that it is being bilked? Are you thinking "Hurray! Even if they are bilking it, at least the poor are getting even with the rich."? Is it sort of like Robin-Hood, except Robin-Hood is stealing for himself? "Good for Robin!" I don't quite get it. Maybe you can explain.....

Did you not see that almost $100 billion a year is paid out in SSDI? If that, by itself, was cleaned-up or revamped, SS, in the big picture, would be fixed and there would be no seeming "crisis." These con-artists are creating the crisis, and we are "buying" into it.

[Islander]

Even people in wheelchairs can work, Mark. Maybe they should re-think what qualifies as a disability, and for the rest, give them checks in exchange for work of some sort that is productive.

You come up with some remarkable generalizations, Jeff. A person may be using a wheelchair for a variety of reasons, from being an amputee, to having MS or some other disease, to having a spinal cord injury, to name just a few. Some may be able to work almost full-time, some part-time, some not at all. As a result, the vast majority of people in this situation live in poverty, unless their condition occurred after they'd been in the workforce for quite some time. A teenage quadraplegic will never be able to earn the living he would have had he not been injured, and his daily expenses will be high, from the basics like single-use catheters that cost $10-15 a day, just so he can urinate, to the purchase and maintenance of a wheelchair and other equipment that he can't do without, ever. He may even need a home-care worker to lift him from his bed into his chair in the morning and back into bed in the evening, as well as taking care of his other basic needs. Would you deny that young man a disability pension?

I can tell you first-hand that with a spinal cord injury, not being able to walk is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other health problems that go along with it, from daily pain, sometimes extreme, to occasional incontinence, to fatigue, to the constant risk of pressure sores, which killed Christopher Reeve, by the way. A spinal cord injury is permanent. You don't get better, and your life will be shorter.

Believe it or not, there are people who are unable to do productive work, through no fault of their own. The small minority of cheaters and scammers who play the system don't change that fact.

[Jeff Matthews]

Even people in wheelchairs can work, Mark. Maybe they should re-think what qualifies as a disability, and for the rest, give them checks in exchange for work of some sort that is productive.

You come up with some remarkable generalizations, Jeff. A person may be using a wheelchair for a variety of reasons, from being an amputee, to having MS or some other disease, to having a spinal cord injury, to name just a few. Some may be able to work almost full-time, some part-time, some not at all. As a result, the vast majority of people in this situation live in poverty, unless their condition occurred after they'd been in the workforce for quite some time. A teenage quadraplegic will never be able to earn the living he would have had he not been injured, and his daily expenses will be high, from the basics like single-use catheters that cost $10-15 a day, just so he can urinate, to the purchase and maintenance of a wheelchair and other equipment that he can't do without, ever. He may even need a home-care worker to lift him from his bed into his chair in the morning and back into bed in the evening, as well as taking care of his other basic needs. Would you deny that young man a disability pension?

I can tell you first-hand that with a spinal cord injury, not being able to walk is just the tip of the iceberg. (think: not all spinal cord injuries are as severe as that). There are many other health problems that go along with it, from daily pain, sometimes extreme, to occasional incontinence, to fatigue, to the constant risk of pressure sores, which killed Christopher Reeve, by the way. A spinal cord injury is permanent. You don't get better, and your life will be shorter.

Believe it or not, there are people who are unable to do productive work, through no fault of their own. The small minority of cheaters and scammers who play the system don't change that fact.

Speaking of remarkable generalizations, I've bolded yours. Now, please go back and note 1 in 18 working age Americans is disabled to the extent they cannot work. Your biggest generalization is the last bolded item. 1 in 18 working age people "can't work at all."

[Jeff Matthews]

Jeff--

You are doing a great job advocating for the uber-rich. But, let's think about this----

1. A man can still be paid $25,000,000 a year for hitting a ball with a stick for sheer amusement, whilst school teachers make $35,000.

What do you propose to do about that? I wish I could hit a ball that good. Supposing he did not get paid that much, how much would that add in profits to the team owners? I believe the fault might lie in the consumers of tickets to the games, etc.

2. A man can still be paid a $50,000,000 (that's million) dollar bonus for running a company into the GROUND and losing billions for his shareholders.

Yes, there's a problem there. The only thing I can think of is that stockholders need to not invest in the company if there are these kinds of salary abuses.

3. CEO pay is way, WAY up! Quote: "But it also found that CEO raises once again dwarfed those of the average worker, who saw pay rise 2.9 percent, to $33,176 per year, and concluded: ''Nearly 40 of the nation's chief executives walked away with more than $20 million, excluding windfalls from option exercises. There have been improvements, but pay for performance is still not the standard practice everywhere. Some [corporate] boards, at least, are still lavishly rewarding CEOs who deserve far less.''END QUOTE

See above.

4. Read this one carefully to get all the zeroes lined up: QUOTE: "The grim toll that the U.S. mortgage crisis has taken on financial markets has been felt worldwide, from traders in Hong Kong to small-town mayors in Europe to pensioners in the American Midwest.

But largely spared have been financiers on Wall Street, a place where brokers, bankers and traders are called into corner offices at the end of each year and told how large a bonus they'll receive for the year's work. The size of the figure reflects their value to the company, and many feared -- even complained out loud -- that the amount would be badly affected by the subprime mess.

They needn't have worried. Wall Street bonuses totaled $33.2 billion in 2007, down just 2 percent, by the estimates of the New York state comptroller's office.

Seven of Wall Street's biggest firms boosted their total compensation and benefits to a combined $122 billion, up 10 percent since 2006, despite seeing their net revenue collectively fall 6 percent, according to Equilar, an executive-compensation research firm based in California. Mortgage-related losses reported by the seven firms totaled $55 billion and wiped out more than $200 billion in shareholder value.

"In a year when shareholders have lost nearly half the value of their holdings, it strains one's imagination how the firms can continue to give such pay," said Michael Garland, director of value strategies at CtW Investment Group, which works with pension funds on corporate governance. "You've got Wall Street guys engineering derivatives securities that destabilized broader financial markets -- it's hard to understand why anyone should get paid for that." END QUOTE

See above. These stocks have these things called "prices." If you don't get a decent bang for your buck, invest in something else.

5. OR my new favorite---QUOTE:"News reports that talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh inked a new eight-year contract with his syndicator, Premier Radio Networks, for a reported $400 million payout immediately produced breathless outrage from some in the media ranks." (Oh yeah...he's working for YOU!)

Yeah, $400M for blabbing crap into a mic a couple hours a day.

Who ya gonna' blame? If he doesn't get $400MM, then, I suppose the syndicates have greater profits. Is that what you want? Why not let them enter their own agreement on terms they agree to? Makes sense to me. Like the baseball player, I wish I could blab as good as Rush. (Seems this is all "envy theory" at its best).

6. Now, the average WAGE for working people in the US is around $38,000/yr. Now mind you Jeff - that is for actual JOBS - WORK -- not for hitting a ball with a stick for amusement, not for driving companies into the ground or losing money for shareholders, not for blabbing nonsense into a mic 3 hours a day, but for actual WORK.

That's because there are too many people willing to work for that. Or.... willing to accept that in lieu of finding something better. Or... willing to accept that in lieu of qualifying themselves for something better. I don't know what to say, except that when I was born, I was naked just like the rest of them. I worked my way. It was not given to me. We grew up without a/c in Houston and in the worst house on the block. I learned how to be industrious. Mowed yards, etc. Something most - indeed, almost all - kids would not be found doing these days. I truly believe most any person can move up in the financial ranks if that is really and truly what they want to do. The fact is not eveyone wants that - or more accurately, wants to go through what it takes for that. It is too much trouble, or whatever. But 7 years of school after high school is not something they are willing to posture themselves to do. So....... am I supposed to feel guilty?

So, fight as hard as you like for the uber-rich, but frankly, I don't think they need your help. Although, they have appreciated your vote to keep them in power!

Well, gee. Now, I feel guilty for wanting to keep what I earn. [:$]

My comments in bold.

[Jeff Matthews]

This time, my comments are inserted above in bold italic.

Larry-- Thanks for drilling all that out. You have way more patience than I do!!

Mark, read it again. I think he admitted that there was a rather large component of SS that is welfare. His original proposition was that there was not a welfare element. Finding this to not be true, Larry responds with "So?".

[Islander]

Jeff, I agree that 1 in 18 does sound suspiciously high. However, I stand by the items you put in bold print. Most spinal cord injuries are worse. Spending months in a rehab hospital learning how to take care of myself is where I saw that on a daily basis. Spinal cord injury is permanent. There is some improvement for the first 12-18 months as the swelling of the cord subsides, but what you're left with after that is what you're looking at for the rest of your life, apart from small changes that may occur, some for the better, some for the worse.

As for my statement that a spinal cord injury shortens your life, this is a proven fact, reflected in thoroughly-researched actuarial tables. The person's fitness is compromised because he's unable to use the large leg muscles to properly work out the heart and lungs. The leg paralysis also impairs blood circulation, which doesn't help either. Those are the major factors. There are other factors as well.

However, after typing all this stuff in these posts, I'm starting to think your mind is made up and any information I provide, whether or not I learned it first-hand over a decade or more, won't change that. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just hope you never have the misfortune of becoming disabled. The reality of it might be more than you could deal with.

[Jeff Matthews]

Islander:

No, we are not in disagreement. You agreed the 1 in 18 is suspiciously high. The difference, if there is any, may be slight. Spinal injuries can be very bad. Some are not that bad. So, yes, I agree they can be very bad. We agree there. Now, what you went through and saw, personally, was a room full of people going through some hell. This is not a median cross-section of the 1 in 18, or 10.1 million Americans that are collecting. It is a very limited set. So, I don't believe we can use your example to suggest the 10.1 million, or 1 in 18, are in the same boat.

Yes, I have much sympathy for those who have truly had bad injuries that leave them unable to care for themselves. I would not wish to undermine help for them. Read my comments as you wish, but be careful to to assume I am cold-hearted. I am just fairly pointing out that the system in place is ripe with waste, and I see no more reason why it needs more money. Instead, it needs to cut down on the waste.

[Jeff Matthews]

Mark, why don't you post a ranking of our GINI versus those of other countries. Last time I checked, we were among the top in terms of a well-balanced GINI. I might be wrong.

Just the same, I can't agree that we should be okay redistributing to those who don't deserve it just because of the increasing wealth gap. I am quite sure I might be increasing my wealth while some crackhead is going down the financial tubes. Se la vie. That is what I am suggested. I don't think we need to promote the crackheads by increasing funding to a corrupted system that supports them to a very large degree. There is no denying that. That it has the effect of possibly ameloriating the speed at which the wealth gap is widening is not suffiicient, morally. There needs to be a morally palatable reason fro redistribution other than just simply enabling the unworthy. Where does the working middle class fit in here?

[Islander]

Islander:

No, we are not in disagreement. You agreed the 1 in 18 is suspiciously high. The difference, if there is any, may be slight. Spinal injuries can be very bad. Some are not that bad. So, yes, I agree they can be very bad. We agree there. Now, what you went through and saw, personally, was a room full of people going through some hell. This is not a median cross-section of the 1 in 18, or 10.1 million Americans that are collecting. It is a very limited set. So, I don't believe we can use your example to suggest the 10.1 million, or 1 in 18, are in the same boat.

Yes, I have much sympathy for those who have truly had bad injuries that leave them unable to care for themselves. I would not wish to undermine help for them. Read my comments as you wish, but be careful to to assume I am cold-hearted. I am just fairly pointing out that the system in place is ripe with waste, and I see no more reason why it needs more money. Instead, it needs to cut down on the waste.

Jeff, we seem to be talking at cross-purposes. You're talking about an American government program. I don't live in America and don't think it's my place to discuss your government's policies.

What I had an issue with was your characterization of the poor, working or otherwise, and the disabled. I've had quite a bit of exposure to both groups and felt that I should bring what I'd learned to your attention, since it appeared that you were basing your postings on stereotypes and not on personal experience. As well, you likely have better knowledge of the number of scammers in your country's programs than I do, so I won't comment further on that.