OT: 1 Trillion explained

[bluesboy]

Hey Mark, I'm your neighbor. I'm in need. Send me some money.

[Brac]

OK but who wants to address the fact that when SS was set up, it started paying people about 7 years after they reached the average age of mortality!!!!!!

[Islander]

OK but who wants to address the fact that when SS was set up, it started paying people about 7 years after they reached the average age of mortality!!!!

When retirement age was first set at 65, by a German Kaiser, IIRC, that was the average life expectancy. It's easy to fund a program when most clients don't live long enough to collect...

[Islander]

I am not quite sure how the poor should complain about that because they don't pay into the system. Why complain about where the tax dollars go when you don't pay taxes in the first place? These folks have absolutely no stake in the syatem except what they can suck out of it. It is wrong.

Perhaps you don't have much contact with the poor, so you think they're just as capable of managing their lives as the rest of us, but they're just too lazy to work for a living. It's not as simple as that. I owned a rooming house for ten years, and I learned that the poor are not poor because they have no money, they're poor because they don't have the basic life skills that most people have.

Organizing their budgets to get them through the month was beyond the abilities of some of my tenants, so I had to collect the rent on their payday, since it would be spent by rent day if I didn't. They didn't have the skills or knowledge to get a decent job in the first place, so their low income permitted no discretionary spending at all. If every penny of your income went to paying for rent, food and clothing, and you still often came up short, you'd feel no better than a slave.

I rented to middle-aged men who'd been poor all their lives and could see no possibility of their situations ever changing. It wasn't surprising that some of them drank a lot. They probably felt that a bit of temporary joy was well worth an argument with the landlord.

There are certainly some layabouts or bums among the poor, but most of the poor are trying to make their way in a world that's just too difficult for them to compete in. They shouldn't be scorned because their best efforts aren't enough.

Taking a few dollars from the fortunate people to help the less fortunate is the decent thing to do and reflects the values of the caring culture that we all claim to belong to.

[Brac]

Taking a few dollars from the fortunate people to help the less fortunate is the decent thing to do

I agree with this and I give where I feel it will help, I sure as heck don't want some buearocrat deciding where and how to spend my money especialy since it will come with a minum of 10 layers of buearocracy, and all of them getting paid with siad money, most of which never gets where the do-gooder politican intended!

[Jeff Matthews]

Mark, I am not exactly a history buff, but my belief was that the social security program was set up SEPARATE AND APART FROM the income tax. It was supposed to be that you paid in your share, and you received back your share. Now, your argument is that the caps should be lifted. I take it that you did not make that statement because you desire the increased revenues from lifting the cap to go only to those who paid in to the system in excess of the current caps. I am sure you did not believe that would be the proper purpose.

So, the idea you are proposing here is essentially a merger of social security and the income tax. Let the rich pay in, not get a commensurate share back, and let the poor retire on it. I am not crazy about that idea at all.

When will the people be expected to work for what they get? Kind of like in the old days.

If we really want to focus on the imbalance of wealth, then let's do something to enable wealth through earning. There are hoards of able-bodied people who do nothing but complain about the "system," while they collect checks for nothing and demand a political change that results in a bigger check. If you work at the "evil" Wal-Mart, who does not pay enough to keep you off of government benefits, work somewhere else. Work on a skill. Work on something that will get you out of that rut. But don't sit there like your stuck and just whine and make demands to get something for nothing.

"Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime."

Just jockeying money from rich to poor is what perpetuates - yes, ENABLES - poverty. There are many who are too proud to get on the government ***. There are a great many that have figured out that this kind of "pride" is a financially losing proposition. This is because our system is structured to take that drive and desire for pride away from people. There will always be many that want more, and who will work for it. But there is no doubt that all of the benefits "programs" that exist have effectively destroyed the initiatives of otherwise capable people.

I realize the many comments you have made about how the system is also skewed toward wealth. In many respects, it is, and I agree with that. BUT.... I am not quite sure how the poor should complain about that because they don't pay into the system. Why complain about where the tax dollars go when you don't pay taxes in the first place? These folks have absolutely no stake in the syatem except what they can suck out of it. It is wrong.

Hi Jeff--

I read your post carefully looking for some shred of common ground, or even common language from which I might build and offer a response. I didn't find one. The values expressed in that post are diametrically opposite of my own. We apparently have no common experience, no common elements whatsoever in our worldview. Whatever response I would offer would be as foreign and strange sounding to you as your post sounds to my ear.

However, since your centerpiece was the anonymous and famous quote about giving fishes vs. teaching fishing, I am going to tack on a little message inspired by the Fisher of Men, since it is frequently claimed this is a "Christian" nation, I assume everyone is familiar with these ideas.

QUOTE:

Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor." When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus expanded the traditional meaning of the word--defining our neighbor as anyone who is in need, including social outcasts: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)

In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."

Jesus himself cared for those in need by feeding the hungry. Crowds of four thousand (Mark 8:1-13) and five thousand (Mark 6:30-44) had assembled to listen to Jesus. They soon became hungry. When his disciples suggested that Jesus send the people away to buy food, he responded by saying "I have compassion on these people..." and "you give them something to eat." He proceeded to perform miracles to feed these large crowds of hungry people.

END QUOTE

Have a swell day!

Mark, where in the "good book" does it tell of all the stories where Jesus invited the lazy to the big banquet? You know -- the otherwise generally healthy people who you try to help, thinking they might be in a temporary slump, but who seem to accept the help and never try to get out of their slump? It is one thing to provide help for the truly helpless. Who can't see that? That is just pure rhetoric.

I think the post about the tenants not having the "snap" to cope with the world is probably a fair take on where the grey area really is.

As was stated in the post on the tenants, but now in my words... They are just slobs who don't want to exert themsleves physically or mentally. They don't have enough snap to get out there and do what the rest of us have to do to make our ways. They think they shouldn't have to because it doesn't come as "easy" to them. Some perceive it is a "they can't." Well, I have news. They don't want to try. There's nobody that can tell me they can't make it on their own despite their "best efforts." Just how much of a "best" effort does it take to mow yards, perform janitorial services and the like? It might not be fun. It might be something a person does not look forward to having to do to get by in this world, but by God, if they would rather complain and demand handouts, they are truly worthless.

If you don't think I am correct, then you might explain why this world required work to survive up until the 20th century. How did the slobs make it before then? Answer: Even slobs knew they had to work and they did so.

Have you noticed something about Mexican illegals in this country? Well, I live in Houston, and I can say I have noticed much about their culture. For one thing, many have it wrong when they try to condemn the illegals as worthless recipients of welfare - citing examples of free school for their children and emergency room visits. That is certainly not the welfare I am talking about. I am talking about checks in the mail, month after month, year after year.

Why is it the illegals can come here dead broke, always having to keep somewhat clear from the police and INS, and still they work their butts off building houses, mowing yards and the like? Many make enough to even send some back home to their families. Why is that? Because they don't get the quick and easy pass into the "system." That's why. I am quite sure the "system" CREATES an underclass, which, by the way, is much larger than you seem to imagine.

Again, please find the quote where Jesus invited the lazy to the banquet. I am sure there are many passages that condemn people who are lazy and don't really have the gumption to do more than the least required - even when the least means doing nothing but receiving hand-outs. Check Proverbs. If Jesus would not have a word or two for people like this, then, he truly was NOT compassionate.

If you think this nation is not chock-full of these types of people, I would suggest you might take a look around in parts beyond your immediate neighborhood.

[Jeff Matthews]

I am not quite sure how the poor should complain about that because they don't pay into the system. Why complain about where the tax dollars go when you don't pay taxes in the first place? These folks have absolutely no stake in the syatem except what they can suck out of it. It is wrong.

Perhaps you don't have much contact with the poor, so you think they're just as capable of managing their lives as the rest of us, but they're just too lazy to work for a living. It's not as simple as that. I owned a rooming house for ten years, and I learned that the poor are not poor because they have no money, they're poor because they don't have the basic life skills that most people have.

Organizing their budgets to get them through the month was beyond the abilities of some of my tenants, so I had to collect the rent on their payday, since it would be spent by rent day if I didn't. They didn't have the skills or knowledge to get a decent job in the first place, so their low income permitted no discretionary spending at all. If every penny of your income went to paying for rent, food and clothing, and you still often came up short, you'd feel no better than a slave.

I rented to middle-aged men who'd been poor all their lives and could see no possibility of their situations ever changing. It wasn't surprising that some of them drank a lot. They probably felt that a bit of temporary joy was well worth an argument with the landlord.

There are certainly some layabouts or bums among the poor, but most of the poor are trying to make their way in a world that's just too difficult for them to compete in. They shouldn't be scorned because their best efforts aren't enough.

Taking a few dollars from the fortunate people to help the less fortunate is the decent thing to do and reflects the values of the caring culture that we all claim to belong to.

That is a beautiful post! Let me start by saying I am sure you must recognize that there a great, great many people like that. These are the controversial ones.

Now, let's examine your thoughts...

"Organizing their budgets to get them through the month was beyond the abilities of some of my tenants, so I had to collect the rent on their payday, since it would be spent by rent day if I didn't."

Let's see... now, since when was there a free pass to be given to those who just somehow don't seem to manage their money right? "Gee, I'm out of money. I wonder how that happened." [:|] I'm sorry, but if you are out of money and don't have the snap to look back and FIGURE OUT HOW IT HAPPENED IN ORDER TO LEARN SOMETHING AND NOT DO IT AGAIN, I have no sympathy. This is an issue of personal responsibility - not brain damage.

"They didn't have the skills or knowledge to get a decent job in the first place, so their low income permitted no discretionary spending at all."

I know of a great many who mow yards, mop floors, cook, bus tables, wait tables. They don't have the skills for a decent job, and that's too bad. BUT THEY MAKE IT HAPPEN. THEY DON'T USE THEIR STRUGGLE AS A COP-OUT FROM CONTINUING IN THE STRUGGLE. Many also supplement by working second jobs. How's that for effort? Yet, in your scenario, having to even work the first job is just "too much" for these poor folks, so they need to suck the ***.

"If every penny of your income went to paying for rent, food and clothing, and you still often came up short, you'd feel no better than a slave."

It would be tough, but I'd rather feel like a slave than a worthless slob on the ***. Believe me, I have worked hard like that, even when I did not have to. I worked on the side to get through school. My parents did not pay my way. It was a job, plus loans, which I paid back with the fruit of my own labor.

"I rented to middle-aged men who'd been poor all their lives and could see no possibility of their situations ever changing."

Now, you see why the issue is cultural. Somebody needs to crack that cultural trait. It is a way of life DESIGNED to keep the participants in a funk.

"It wasn't surprising that some of them drank a lot. They probably felt that a bit of temporary joy was well worth an argument with the landlord."

Why am I not surprised?

"There are certainly some layabouts or bums among the poor, but most of the poor are trying to make their way in a world that's just too difficult for them to compete in. They shouldn't be scorned because their best efforts aren't enough."

See my previous post.

"Taking a few dollars from the fortunate people to help the less fortunate is the decent thing to do and reflects the values of the caring culture that we all claim to belong to."

It depends on if they can help themselves or not. You seem to be more inclined to be a sucker when a beggar comes your way and gives you some sort of sob story. In the big city, you get your fill of these folks. Trust me. They are BUMS. FYI, you might ask "why do they seem to be more numerous in the big cities?" Answer: That's where all the "programs" are.

[LarryC]

OK but who wants to address the fact that when SS was set up, it started paying people about 7 years after they reached the average age of mortality!!!!!!

What do you mean? What's the basis for that statement? I'm pretty sure that the average age of mortality in 1940 was higher than 58 (65 minus 7). Oh, and what is the point behind your question?

Social Security first began to collect taxes ("contributions") in 1937. Retirement payments were delayed for a few years to allow the trust fund to build up a balance. The first retirement benefit payment was made in 1940. At present, one must contribute FICA taxes for 40 quarters (i.e., 10 years if paid continuously) to become eligible for any SS payments or Medicare benefits.

None of this seems out of line to me.

[LarryC]

When retirement age was first set at 65, by a German Kaiser, IIRC, that was the average life expectancy. It's easy to fund a program when most clients don't live long enough to collect...

Not true now, anyway (life expectancy is the average remaining life span). I don't know what the life expectancy was in 1940 (the year first year Social Security payments were made), but current expectancy is much higher: The CDC life table for the US population in 2003 estimates that 82.7% of people born that year (I think that's how the table works) will still be alive at age 65-66. The expectation of remaining life at that age is 18.4 years., i.e., until over age 83. This has been increasing in recent years, at least through 2004:

FYI --

[LarryC]

Mark, I am not exactly a history buff, but my belief was that the social security program was set up SEPARATE AND APART FROM the income tax. Exactly right. It was supposed to be that you paid in your share, and you received back your share. Now, your argument is that the caps should be lifted. I take it that you did not make that statement because you desire the increased revenues from lifting the cap to go only to those who paid in to the system in excess of the current caps. I think that's exactly why he made the statement -- ultimately the payments in, plus interest, will go only to recipients. Until then, the suplus is loaned out via interest-paying bonds, which are to be paid back into the trust funds. I am sure you did not believe that would be the proper purpose. If you are saying Mark intended the funds to go elsewhere permanently, I do not believe that.

So, the idea you are proposing here is essentially a merger of social security and the income tax. Let the rich pay in, not get a commensurate share back, and let the poor retire on it. I am not crazy about that idea at all. This statement doesn't hold water. Like everyone, the rich pay into the system and get back a pension that is related to their income and taxes paid over time. Social Security is NOT A PROGRAM FOR THE POOR.

When will the people be expected to work for what they get? Kind of like in the old days. This has nothing to do with Social Security.

If we really want to focus on the imbalance of wealth, then let's do something to enable wealth through earning. There are hoards of able-bodied people who do nothing but complain about the "system," while they collect checks for nothing and demand a political change that results in a bigger check. If you work at the "evil" Wal-Mart, who does not pay enough to keep you off of government benefits, work somewhere else. Again, none of this has anything to do with Social Security. SS is a pay-in, pay-out pension system. It is not some sort of a dole for poor or lazy people. Work on a skill. Work on something that will get you out of that rut. But don't sit there like your stuck and just whine and make demands to get something for nothing. -- N/A --

Just jockeying money from rich to poor is what perpetuates - yes, ENABLES - poverty. This statement fails to comprehend Social Security and the US tax system. As mentioned, SS is not a system for the poor. You seem to be confusing Social Security with welfare, which IS a program for the poor. Now, to give credit to your assumption, SS does mildly redistribute the payment spread from those who had higher incomes during their working years to those at lower income levels. HOWEVER, the overall tax system has the opposite effect!!! Income taxes are "progressive," i.e., higher rates at higher incomes, while SS taxes are REGRESSIVE, i.e., taxing at the same rate at all income levels until the cap is reached, and then no further increases, so that the PERCENTAGE of income paid as SS tax goes down. Therefore, the rich are not soaked, but rather are given a break in comparison with income taxes.

There are many who are too proud to get on the government ***. This again confuses SS with welfare payments, which is funded entirely by federal and state taxes and is not a contributory system -- unlike SS. Welfare is an entirely different proposition and has nothing to do with SS.

The above comment applies to your last paragraph as well -- .

I realize the many comments you have made about how the system is also skewed toward wealth. In many respects, it is, and I agree with that. BUT.... I am not quite sure how the poor should complain about that because they don't pay into the system. Why complain about where the tax dollars go when you don't pay taxes in the first place? These folks have absolutely no stake in the syatem except what they can suck out of it. It is wrong.

I guess I'll take a whack at this, given what seem to be widespread misunderstandings from lots of negative kool-aid around about Social Security. Keep in mind that there has been a lot of controversy, negative spin, and simply wrong statements about Social Security since its inception. The complexity of the program makes those things easy to do!

Because of that complexity and the number of statements above that need comments, I inserted mine in BOLD --

I hope this is helpful.

[Jeff Matthews]

Larry, you are partly right and partly wrong. That is the beauty of this issue. Simple definitions and original intentions do not equate to reality. First, the lifting of the caps is not intended to mean that the additional revenues from that will go to those who actually paid it. You made a suggestion that the benefits to be received by a person are commensurate to the money paid in. This is true to a limit. Second, and most importantly, take a look at the comparative plans of the two current (cough) politicians (cough). You will note that one's plan is to provide a tax credit for low income earners that is designed to credit back automatic payroll deductions for FICA that the low income earner paid in. So.... lift the caps, get the rich to pay more in, and make it where the poor don't have to pay in, and.... the poor will still get their SS money down the road even though they did not pay in. So, not only do they not pay income tax, they don't contribute to FICA. But they'll still be able to retire and collect gov't checks with a very real possibility that one could retire and collect a check without ever having paid a DIME into the system. Yippee!

[LarryC]

Larry, you are partly right and partly wrong. That is the beauty of this issue. Simple definitions and original intentions do not equate to reality. First, the lifting of the caps is not intended to mean that the additional revenues from that will go to those who actually paid it. You made a suggestion that the benefits to be received by a person are commensurate to the money paid in. This is true to a limit. Second, and most importantly, take a look at the comparative plans of the two current (cough) politicians (cough). You will note that one's plan is to provide a tax credit for low income earners that is designed to credit back automatic payroll deductions for FICA that the low income earner paid in. So.... lift the caps, get the rich to pay more in, and make it where the poor don't have to pay in, and.... the poor will still get their SS money down the road even though they did not pay in. So, not only do they not pay income tax, they don't contribute to FICA. But they'll still be able to retire and collect gov't checks with a very real possibility that one could retire and collect a check without ever having paid a DIME into the system. Yippee!

No -- you are wrong when you say that "additional revenues" are not intended for to those who actually paid it. That is exactly the purpose of having a discrete trust fund. You are assuming the surpluses go elsewhere and aren't coming back, and you are simply mistaken about that.

I am not familiar with the proposals you describe -- but, that's all that they are: "proposals" that are meant to satisfy some political interest and haven't a prayer of going anywhere. One reason the proposal you describe doesn't have a prayer is precisely because it mixes up the payroll and the general revenues financing systems, and that's gone nowhere in 70 years. That fantasy gives you no basis for your arguments.

[Jeff Matthews]

Larry, you are partly right and partly wrong. That is the beauty of this issue. Simple definitions and original intentions do not equate to reality. First, the lifting of the caps is not intended to mean that the additional revenues from that will go to those who actually paid it. You made a suggestion that the benefits to be received by a person are commensurate to the money paid in. This is true to a limit. Second, and most importantly, take a look at the comparative plans of the two current (cough) politicians (cough). You will note that one's plan is to provide a tax credit for low income earners that is designed to credit back automatic payroll deductions for FICA that the low income earner paid in. So.... lift the caps, get the rich to pay more in, and make it where the poor don't have to pay in, and.... the poor will still get their SS money down the road even though they did not pay in. So, not only do they not pay income tax, they don't contribute to FICA. But they'll still be able to retire and collect gov't checks with a very real possibility that one could retire and collect a check without ever having paid a DIME into the system. Yippee!

No -- you are wrong when you say that "additional revenues" are not intended for to those who actually paid it. That is exactly the purpose of having a discrete trust fund. You are assuming the surpluses go elsewhere and aren't coming back, and you are simply mistaken about that.

I am not familiar with the proposals you describe -- but, that's all that they are: "proposals" that are meant to satisfy some political interest and haven't a prayer of going anywhere. One reason the proposal you describe doesn't have a prayer is precisely because it mixes up the payroll and the general revenues financing systems, and that's gone nowhere in 70 years. That fantasy gives you no basis for your arguments.

Call it fantasy all you wish, but this is the plan. I believe I heard earlier a proposal from Mark to lift the cap. This is not an isolated suggestion. I believe I heard you say any plan that would mix the general funds with SS would fail - would be a fantasy. Well, imagine if the plan is not mixed. You get a tax credit that just happens to equal your FICA contributions. No mixing there.

For a reality check on how much of a real deal this is, you might look here for a comparison of the plans. Keep in mind there is huge support for this. So, no, I do not take it as fantasy. See the discussion of the "Making Work Pay" credit that is proposed. This discussion is at page 18, 3rd paragraph at: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

[jacksonbart]

one trillion, now you are talkin giberish. Hey Beaver, you and Whitey get your wagon away from Dad's Chrysler 300 sedan so he can take me and Eddy to the dance tonight. Maryanne can give one nice bl@# J$^&

[Jeff Matthews]

one trillion, now you are talkin giberish. Hey Beaver, you and Whitey get your wagon away from Dad's Chrysler 300 sedan so he can take me and Eddy to the dance tonight. Maryanne can give one nice bl@# J$^&

Hey, JB! Have you been back in the pasture again?

[Brac]

VERY NICE!!![Y][D][]

[Brac]

VERY NICE!!![Y][D][]

[LarryC]

Call it fantasy all you wish, but this is the plan. I believe I heard earlier a proposal from Mark to lift the cap. This is not an isolated suggestion. I believe I heard you say any plan that would mix the general funds with SS would fail - would be a fantasy. Well, imagine if the plan is not mixed. You get a tax credit that just happens to equal your FICA contributions. No mixing there.

For a reality check on how much of a real deal this is, you might look here for a comparison of the plans. Keep in mind there is huge support for this. So, no, I do not take it as fantasy. See the discussion of the "Making Work Pay" credit that is proposed. This discussion is at page 18, 3rd paragraph at: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

Jeff,

The Tax Policy Center would do a very respectable analysis, since it is co-sponsored by the Brookings Insitution and the Urban Institute. You gotta understand, though, that the paper in your link will be one of hundreds or more that carry out a studiously objective analysis of proposals. Like most, it doesn't bear the slightest hint that they will go nowhere (I've seen a million of them, and they end up in recycling!), although this seems to be an especially good, critical analysis. "Huge" support in Washington is very, very cheap, and not worth a whole lot in the crunch.

Moreover, I don't see on p. 18 where it actually says that the refundable tax credit would actually be used in the Social Security system. I suspect it doesn't actually say that. Rather, it says the application of the credits would reduce the regressivity of the SS system, perhaps by the appearance (but not the reality) of offsetting something. That's not the same thing as actual substitution.

Lifting the cap: That would be a change strictly within the payroll (Social Security) tax and financing system, and the greater income plus interest would eventually go to beneficiaries. This would be MUCH better and give more definite results than giving tax credits for vague purposes in the hopes they would accomplish something. It would eliminate the trust-fund shortfall predicted for mid-century, and probably cure it for most of the 21st century. (Keep in mind that SS actuaries think in 75-year cycles of income, outgo, and fund balances.) I think you're still thinking that SS surpluses disappear into general revenues, which as I've said they do NOT.

You may be making a more subtle point, however -- revenues raised by payroll taxes would substitute to some extent for general (income-tax) revenues. That would have the political "benefit" of making the GR deficit look smaller and perhaps encourage more spending -- something we do NOT need!

This area is technically and politically far more complex and difficult to analyze than it seems, and it's easy to get in over one's head.

Oh yes --- beware of drinking kool-aid from the financial services industry, long-term opponents of Social Security because they'd rather have that income to play with (and sometimes steal) themselves. For example, be very suspicious of anything that is spun in a way to undermine or make Social Security look bad. One way is to paint it as a program for poor people!! Sound familiar? Isn't that how you were looking at it?

[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....

[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.

"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.

"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!

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

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

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. [:^)]