E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The recession and drawn out recovery has prompted a lot of discussion about whether entitlement programs ranging from unemployment insurance to food stamps help people in need or keep people from helping themselves.
A recent analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income families, offers some insight into that issue by showing who exactly is using these government benefits.
The answer: Mostly the 65-plus crowd, but also disabled people and working Americans.
Using the 2010 federal budget and U.S. Census data , the CBPP finds that 53 percent of all government entitlements are going to people who are over 65 years old.
Another 20 percent of the benefits went to disabled people, while 18 percent were going to people in a working household. The data was for the government’s 2010 fiscal year.
That means that 9 percent of entitlements went to people who were not elderly, disabled or living in a household in which someone had worked at least 1,000 hours in a year.
The analysis included Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, SNAP (otherwise known as food stamps), Social Security Insurance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the school lunch program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the refundable component of the Child Tax Credit.
Taken together, that accounts for $1.8 trillion of the approximately $2.1 trillion in benefit costs the government paid out in the 2010 fiscal year, according to the researchers. The report said most of the remaining money went to federal and veteran retirement benefits, which it excluded from its calculation.
In addition, the report included about $130 billion in state funding for benefits such as Medicaid.
The main analysis did not include programs for which Congress must set funding levels each year, including low-income housing and energy assistance programs and WIC, which provides nutrition to low-income moms and young children. However, the authors said when they did the analysis with those benefits it didn't change the calculations substantially.
Of course, it makes sense that older Americans are getting a large chunk of benefits because that’s who Medicare and Social Security are aimed at.
Most of the 9 percent of payouts going to people who were not working, elderly or disabled were unemployment benefits, medical care payments, Social Security survivor benefits and payouts for people who opted to take Social Security between ages 62 to 64.
The report noted that there are likely others who would like to be getting government benefits but aren’t because there’s a limit to how much is given out for certain benefit programs.
Leave a Comment:
Yes, most of it might go to those over 65, and they deserve it. They paid taxes all through their working years, helped defend this country, helped build some of it. They darn well earned it.
So why does the GOP platform always tries to screw them? Is it because they aren't rich enough, or they aren't the sugar daddy corporations that all politicians live off of, besides our tax money.
I am sorry Sallyann, but that demographic (and others) always seems to vote against their best interest. When I hearwe are cutting xyz programs, but not for the elderly it pisses me off. I have worked just as hard and I am sure make a lot more money than some of the elderly on the government take (I really have no problem with that) and dumped a crap ton of money into social security. We have the baby-boomers trying to hijack the system (yes, the if you are 55+ you are safe crowd) and screw over the other people below them. If government help is good for the elderly, is should be good enough for everyone else. Can it be improved, yes. We can always strive to make things operate more efficiently. I am happy this came out, so that people can see where the bulk of the money is going. Yes, I know there is waste and that we we should push to make sure we trim the wasteful aspect of these programs, however we do not have to throw out the baby with the bath water.
It is because for years people have been receiving much more help than they paid for. Someone who turns 65 today expects the same benefits those before him got. And if we continue to pay out more than we take in we will go bankrupt.
Franklin Roosevelt created social security and Lyndon Johnson created medicare, two programs which force you to support the current retirees while you are working, and then have a future generation support you when you are retired. Contrary to what many believe, your money is not nor was ever put aside for you.
We are all going to be elderly some day, and should each prepare for it rather than rely on the government to do it for us.
Only 53%. Who's getting the rest? Tell us the truth, nbc. The elderly should be getting 80% of it, not the freeloaders. And Sallyann, while I agree the elderly should get most of it, it's not the Republicans trying to cut off elderly assistance, it's the freeloaders they are trying to cut off. Don't believe all the crap the Dems and liberal media feed you.
Here is an interesting tidbit about social security...
It was just a low cost way to win votes. At the time that social security was implemented, and the age one could start receiving was set at 62, the average life expectancy was only 63. In other words, most people would not live long enough to collect.
This is why social security is such a mess; it was never meant to pay as many people as it does, it was just a scam to get votes. Obviously lawmakers at the time never imagined that people would be living as long as they do now.
"The analysis included Social Security..."
Since when was Social Security an entitlement? I would be interested in what that graph looked like if Social Security numbers were removed.
Skiddy, did you read the article or look at the graph? It clearly says who is getting the rest - and I'm pretty sure the 20% who are disabled don't qualify as freeloaders.
Come where I live Rob, go down to the street corner, and look at all the "disabled." I bet of the 20%, half are only "lazy" as their disability.
Come where I live Rob, go down to the street corner, and look at all the "disabled." I bet of the 20%, half are only "lazy" as their disability.
So true. I have a family member who audits disability claims and while there are certainly people who deserve it, fraud is rampant....
Looking at the entitlements they used to score this, the results don't add up. Most of the entitlements listed are geared to help "non-elderly". A more accurate way to measure the distribution of entitlements is to do one with medicare and social security, then another with "all the rest of it". Let's see how much we pay out in benefits to the elderly/retired and let's see how much we pay out to those with ability to work. And don't get me started on "disability", we all know 80% on "disability" are NOT disabled to the point they can not hold a job. No one has an issue with benefits to the elderly, it's the rest of it that is breaking the nation.
Hold on there a sec...the seniors also voted in the same politicians responsbile for trying to hose the rest of us over...
My in laws epitomize this generation...they got theirs now eff you
And corporations are just clamoring to hire the elderly who wish to work, and provide them insurance.
How else are they expected to "help themselves"?
They paid 7% of their wages,(their employers matched same) 800 dollars per year in Medicare tax, the government had use of the money for over 60 years (except medicare tax only 32 years); where did it go, it went to fund LBJ great society, wars, even congress took millions for their travel computers; now we must convince those who worked for over 40 years, that they are leaches living off the system, instead of telling the truth, that there is over 2 trillion taken and can not be paid back, does the government pundits really believe Americans are that stupid.
So let's just cut off all support to anyone who isn't working. After all, they're not contributing to society, why should we support those lazy bums. If we kill Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare completely most of these undeserving bums will die off pretty quickly, and there will be more left for the rest of us.
/sarc/
Yahoo.................Seniors Rock................again.
Severed head in a jar Frankenstien is looking for a new head.
RACHEL MADDOW has been reminding us of this fact for months.
Sadly, elderly TEA PARTY supporters have been hood-winked into a lie that has them very confused about this reality.
And I disagree.
They paid taxes, sure, and they get it all back in 'entitlements' in just a few years, leaving the rest of us to foot the bill with our taxes.
They've been duped into being consumers, pumping up the economy with their spending, all the while giggling because they have SS coming.
Rather, of course, than living frugally and planning for their retirement and not needing SS in the first place.
SS and such 'entitlements' are nothing more than a carrot on a stick, used to frighten elderly voters into voting for certain candidates.
Initially, if you bother researching, SS was intended to help the elderly and poor at a time when few people lived past 65 in the first place.
Now it's much more than that, wouldn't you say?
Pete: "they" "they" "they"...everyone is at fault for paying taxes all of their lives and then having the audacity to live beyond 65? You have no idea what you're talking about...people lived beyond 65 in Roosevelt's day when "elderly" and "poor" went together like youth and inexperience. Grow up and stop whining about the supposed "carrot on a stick" and stop believing Tea Party propaganda ...social security is just fine--and by the way, how's that million dollar savings account plan of yours coming after the recent recession?
The elderly deserve it because they paid a higher percentage of their earned income into Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. It got as high as 6.2%, the same as what employers now pay on behalf of the employee. Due to the Bush tax cuts, workers now only pay 4.2%. The last time we saw such a low withholding rate for emplyees was back in 1969-70.
So young people now are getting a big discount on Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. The author of this article failed to mention this.
Social Security was created because:
Same goes for a lot of other government programs (like the Children's Health Insurance Program).
This "let them eat cake" attitude of some on the right is as foolish now as it was when Marie Antionette had it.
The problem is NOT entitlements, it's TAXES. (lowest top rate since 1931)!!!
petemp; wow, you really missed the facts, 14% per year paid in of gross earnings (they even paid taxes on their 7% taken out; it was supposed to be invested in Treasury bonds, earning interest( lifetime payments of employee and employer between 140-360 thousand) if it earned 3% interest compounded for 30 years, the amount to pay benefits would be around 650 thousand, instead the congress spent it all, and never paid interest, as cwas ingreed in the social security act.
15.6% of annual income (counting mandatory employer 'contributions) paid in per year by all of the working poor and middle class, anyone with an income less than $106,800. The you pay income tax on top of that.
But if you make a million dollars a year, you pay less than 1.7%.
Rounded off to the nearest tenth of a percent, Mitt Romney pays 0.0%.
So, it turns out that 'entitlements' go to the elderly and disabled.
So much for all the whining about blacks, immigrants, etc.
Then again, the bigots never let facts stand in their way.
SS and Medicare should NOT be included in this analysis, we seniors paid for these programs. As above, we should get more than we put in! That's how compound interest works.
This is clearly another leftist hit piece trying to divide and conquer.
And no, the problem is not taxes, it is spending, entitlements and otherwise.
Elderly are increasingly leaning conservative as they see the destruction of their retirement plans due to Obama's dollar devaluation policy. We seniors don't buy a car or refrigerator every week, we do buy food and gas. Both are pissing us off!
It is republicans, and specifically the Tea Party that is offering solutions rather than kick the can down the road. Simple logic test, when you are paying out way more than you are collecting, do you keep spending till there's nothing left for anyone or do you scale back a little now to return the system to solvency?
The above post is right SS was set up originally so no one would collect much. It's a lie that many people lived much past 65. Some lived to real old age but the life expectancy was much lower than it is now.
Also, when it was passed there were 17 workers per retiree, now there are three and soon two. By definition, future benefits will have to be lowered because the population is no longer increasing exponentially.
Finally Medicare is a complete disaster and Obamacare made it even worse. We support republicans because we, like 2/3rd of all people want it gone! Do you see any democrats doing hand stands over it's 2 year anniversary? What a disaster. Why they would think that stealing $500,000,000,000 from Medicare would make seniors happy is beyond me.
Democrats are liars when they say tax the rich hinting that it will solve the problem. Not even close. We have overspent so much that all the rich in the world isn't enough. Gates and Buffet are two of the most wealthy people on the planet, if you confiscated their entire fortunes it wouldn't even run this country for a week.
commonsense - Actually, Romney pays a lot less than 1.7% into SS and Medicare.
Because he takes most of his income as capital gains (or carried interest), NOT as wages.
This is how the investor class gets away with paying 0% in payroll taxes!
Social Security and Social Security Disability are not Entitlements. They are insurance if you don't pay the premium you don't get the benefits I paid the premium for 45 years so I am entitled to retirement benefits and coverage if I become disabled before 65. Now an Entitlement is something you get for nothing. You get money although you do not work, are not disabled, and have not funded your retirement through FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) which takes money from your pay check to pay your Social Security premium. Our Government just keeps you. Why? Maybe to stop an onslaught as happened in Greece. If one is going to put out statistics BE Truthful. I certainly was offended by the pie chart -- what a bunch of bull.
LOL......
Amazing....where are the chart statistics on Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) receiving SSI, food stamps, housing vouchers, medicaid, etc. ?
Maybe an interview with Mr. Obama's Aunt and Uncle could find out how they lived in the U.S. without being citizens.
Another article targeting Class Warfare for Mr. Obama.
Commonsense is sounding more and more like Feisty the Blondie.
P.S. Commonsense....please get some sense.....or is that CENTS @ your local Obama Bucks store.
Sorry, the Devil made me do it.
So, it turns out that 'entitlements' go to the elderly and disabled.
So much for all the whining about blacks, immigrants, etc.
Then again, the bigots never let facts stand in their way.
But the first thing that they threaten to cut is always funding to the poor. It makes no sense.
Any cuts should target Illegal Aliens (Immigrants) who do not belong in the United States to begin with.
NOW.....that makes complete and total SENSE.
CIS: Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don’t pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work “on the books.”
You could cut aid to illegals but it would not be cutting very much. It is basically another Republican non issue talking point
Santanick: Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Social Security was set up to operate like an insurance company -- collect premiums, invest the money and pay the money collected and earned when due the policy holder under the terms of the policy -- the money was to be held in the Social Security Trust Fund. All went fine until the Democrats under LBJ decided they needed money and raided the fund. The Democrats and LBJ traded the money in the fund for an IOU. Right now, as it stands, the government is repaying that IOU (non-negotiable bonds) which is essentially worthless. By your reasoning China gets an entitlement whenever it redeems our bonds. BTW: The bonds we sell to China are negotiable.
It seems that more than a few of you have some misconceptions. SS and Medicare are indeed entitlements - look up the definition instead of relying on your won (incorrect) notion. Valhalla Phil, in particular, doesn't seem to know how SS works - he expects to get more than he paid by virtue of compound interest. Sorry Phil, it doesn't work that way. The payments we all make while working goes to pay the benefits of those who are retired and have applied for the entitlement. It is not a "savings account" that accrues interest.
T. Bill Rate....my Father is 90 years old and still collecting SS. In the '50s, he was paying about 7% of his wages in taxes. That is his total taxes, FICA and SS. There is no way he paid into SS what he has gotten out. The problems was and still is, the government stealing from the "trust" fund. Had the government left those funds alone and had them invested in secure, interest bearing accounts, it might be a different story entirely.
Things being the way they are, I am not counting on any SS in my retirement planning.
Once again they these progressive bozo's attempt to portray Social Security and Medicare as entitlements, which they are most certainly not. They keep lumping them in with the true entitlements because it fits their agenda.
Valhalla,
How/why is medicare a complete disaster and how did Obamacare make it worse? My own view is that medicare should be means tested and less spent for end of life/over 80-crowd. What do you think?
Well, B707320C, for starters, Obama stole a half trillion from Medicare to fund his own healthcare abomination. That's only one way he's made it worse.
Wet Willy,
I was under the impression that the $500B represents savings over 10 years that will come from a variety of sources, including higher Medicare premiums for very wealthy seniors, reductions in federal payments to private insurers that administer Medicare Advantage plans and reduced annual payment increases to hospitals and other providers, i.e. increases that are linked to the Consumer Price Index. I also understand the the GOP Ryan proposal actually keeps these "cuts" in place in their proposed budget in spite of their outrage. In exchange seniors get relief from the "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription plan. Do I have this right? Have you personally been hurt by this cut? Are you in the medical profession/industry I am interested to know how you have been negatively impacted. Are you wealthy and will be impacted by any means testing? I, for one, pay over $24,000 per year in medical premium on my own nickel. I need more choice that will be available on the exchanges. I have a pre-existing condition and I need to keep my son on my insurance for a while. I am about 10 years away from Medicare.
Social security was not set up as an investment plan. Contributors were expected to cover the monies going out to those receiving benefits. Excess income into the plan was expected to be invested in treasury bonds (not always the greatest return).
The actuarial model is out of date. When social security started, the average life span was 63, I believe it's currently up to 75.
Social administration costs are not free, I have yet to see how much the government pays for administering this program.
Social security has been warped over the years. It has been used to pay for rather expensive college educations at private universities.
There was a time when Americans relied on family and churches for support in times of dire need, not it's the government.
As long as beneficiaries continue to expect much more than they contributed, it will continue to be an ENTITLEMENT program.
I'm not saying the program is not needed. It has been severely misrepresented. Consider the current AARP (Aged Americans Requiring Paychecks) commercial. One of the actors indicates that's what she plans on living on. Over the past 30 years, people have talked about Social Security going bankrupt. Yet some people refused to take personal responsibility for their own retirement.
In the mean time, they need to institute means testing. People with over a million in assets do not need it as much as those who recklessly did not plan for their own retirement. Yes - dodo happens and the country does need a safety net, I just get irritated when the safety net is quilted. The government needs to put restriction on how much they pay for a child's education after the parent has passed (there's nothing wrong with starting at a community college, then going to an in state school).
On the topic of medicare, I hate all those scooter store commercials. "You don't have to pay anything", but your fellow citizens will apparently gladly foot the bill.
Jrschw--I generally agree with you. I have been fortunate and took early retirement. Frankly, I don't need social security. But here's one for you. My wife is older than me by a few years. She took social security at 62. But we also had an 18 year old in high school. If you can believe this, he was entitled to social security payments for 4 months while finishing school because he still lived at home. Talk about means testing. The scooter commercials drive me crazy too. Get a wheelchair or pay for it yourself.
SallyAnn, you were right, those over 65 have paid their dues, until you went off on a political tangent.
The GOP is not against the seniors, and it's just political spin to say they are. Not contributing to the bankruptcy of our grandchildren's generation is important to today's senior citizens as well.
What this shows is only a small part of government benefits goes to people under the age of 65. Most is going to Social Security and Medicare, which are trust funds that are paid into via FICA with-holdings. Unemployment, which is also funded with insurance premiums should be separated as well.
Then there are the programs that are not paid for: Social Security Disability, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. The so-called "welfare" payouts are a very small part. Right-wing claims about unemployment and food stamps are completely unfounded.
Disability, on the other hand is 20%, and is growing. Disability along with survivor benefits are what is placing undue strain on Social Security because this is usually paid out to people who have not contributed to Social Security. The disabled under age 65 often begin collecting when they turn 18.
Survivor benefits have been paid to women who have never or rarely been in the workforce (my mother), and of course minors who lose a parent (father) before the age of 18.
In the baby boomer generation, most women are in the workforce. This is another reason why it's wrong to attack the baby boomer generation in comparison to my mother's generation in which 50-60% of women like her are collecting SS benefits based on their husband's contribution (= big deficit).
Survivor benefits need to be means tested. I know children who received checks even though there was life insurance for the father, and their mother had remarried to someone with a good income.
Valhalla Phil -- You are a right-winger, and here you are asking for a bigger hand out like right-wingers do when it comes to the benefits you collect. If you invested money with compound interest you would NEVER collect what your SS check is.
Also, SS is like insurance, so NO you don't get your premiums refunded if you don't make a "claim" (i.e., don't live until age 65 or are rich enough you don't need it).
hs321 -- T-bills don't have much of a return, but are safe. The main problem has been congress raiding the fund and leaving IOUs that are never paid, as you point out.
Social Security is a sound system. The cap on FICA with-holdings just need to be raised from $106,000 up to $500,000 in income, and we need means testing for any earners above that--millionaires need not collect. Medicare for all would make Medicare solvent as well as fixing our broken health care system at the same time.
Those on disability need to be covered the way private insurance does -- with inability to dress, feed, or bath yourself as criteria. Otherwise you and/or family need to pay a premium toward your care in a universal health care system the way the elderly do for Medicare. I personally know someone with a learning disability who is eligible, but is completely capable in all other ways and has family to help care for her. She is not truly needy, not even as truly needy as many of the unemployed currently are.
But the problem is not the poor or the unemployed, so you conservatives can stop your hate mongering toward these folks now.
AP-1414066
Pete: "they" "they" "they"...everyone is at fault for paying taxes all of their lives and then having the audacity to live beyond 65?
They have the audacity to expect to be supported with SS at the expense of other taxpayers after getting back what they put in plus interest. That's fair?
You have no idea what you're talking about...people lived beyond 65 in Roosevelt's day when "elderly" and "poor" went together like youth and inexperience.
And with this statement, you show that YOU are the one that knows nothing of history. Go do some research into the average life expectancy when SS was implemented. And why were elderly and poor so entwined? Thrall us with your acumen.
Grow up and stop whining about the supposed "carrot on a stick" and stop believing Tea Party propaganda.
I think you should take some high-school level courses on reasoning and critical thinking. Assuming that I support the Tea Party just makes you look really ignorant and presumptuous.
...social security is just fine--
Again, do some research and get back to us. You won't like what you find, and thus, I predict, won't resurface. Enjoy your ignorance!
and by the way, how's that million dollar savings account plan of yours coming after the recent recession?
Doing just fine! I started saving 20 years ago and I'm almost halfway there at just over 40.
How about you, bucko?
B707320C 1.39
The 500B that Obama was by his own words supposed to come from savings realized by uncovering waste and fraud. The problem is that he takes the money without any correlation to any moneys recovered from any efficiencies or the uncovering of any fraud, which there will be little to none, and no one should hold their breath waiting for some news of eliminated waste and/or fraud in the Medicare system, it isn't going to happen. The end result is 500B taken from the Medicare budget.
Furthermore, Obama's plan to reduce some Medicare costs by reduced payments to physicians, a disaster in the making, will force doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients or retire, which is why the plan gets deferred every year.
Without delving into all the details of the Ryan plan which I'm pretty certain neither of us wants to do, the gist of it is that those already on Medicare would keep what they have and this would extend to those not yet on Medicare who are at least 55 years old. The proposed changes would be for those 54 years old and younger. The only certainty about Medicare is that something needs to be done or it will collapse. Exactly what will end up being done is anybody's guess.
Your healthcare premiums are over 2k a month? That is a lot.
@smartypants. Wrong. When SS was created in 1935 the age of receipt was set at 65. The life expectancy for a man living at that time was only 59 1/2 yrs of age. The social security insurance program was designed as insurance is.....many pay in but only a few get a pay out. Over time it became skewed because today the average life expectancy is nearly 79 for men. It ceased to be an insurance plan back in 1965 when the average life expectancy for a man at that time was 65.
The first check was not cut until 1940. The SS Trust Fund concept was an amendment to the original legislation that mandated the difference between revenue and expenditures be invested in special treasury securities that came with an interest rate. So yes the funds were transferred into the general fund. However, as we haven`t begun to pull out of those funds would you be happier if they were just sitting in Fort Knox doing nothing? Probably not.
wait...you mean it is not going to illegals, blacks, lazy, welfare queens, slutty contraception moms, and otherwise morally corrupt people who jesus tells us probably deserve to be left to rot and die?
no...that cant be right...
Social Security would be just fine had those in office not "borrowed" from the fund without paying anything back!!! This study is pure propaganda put out by those in government with an agenda to make their ineptness, and corruption seem reasonable!
It leaves out the benefits to "instant citizens" and their families. Here's a fact that's only from one state.
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20100807-Across-Texas-60-000-babies-3859.ece
Between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.
Now times that by three, you don't really think mommy and daddy go home do you?
Was this counted in their figures?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4000401.html
Joe Riley is the CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center near the Texas-Mexico border. Forty percent of the children born there, nearly 2,400 last year, were the babies of illegal immigrants.
"We have uncompensated care of over $200 million a year," Riley said.
"Of money that you'll never see again?" Pitts asked.
"Yes," he said.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said: "It is not fair to the taxpayers who have to foot the bill."
People on welfare are entitled to cell phones paid for by the tax paying workers, and most of those cell phones are supplied by a Mexican national!
http://news.yahoo.com/washington-footing-cell-phone-bill-millions-low-income-202500656.html
Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.
Safelink Wireless – Safelink Wireless is a brand of Tracfone. This is the largest, oldest and best known of the companies that offer free government cell phones. They have more than 2,000,000 customers in 31 states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. And they’re coming soon to the remaining 19 states.
Safelink Wireless is owned by Mexican Carlos Slim, the world’s richest man.
We don't even know how much the education, health care, etc. of illegal aliens cost us because the government refuses to do any in depth studies, so that too is left out!
To try and deflect the blame on what's going on to those who have built, this country with their sweat, defended it with their blood, etc. only shows how morally bankrupt these bean counters, and their bosses are! Just look at the unemployment figures of our veterans! We have let those in power become possessed by the power "we gave them".
quite appalling a so called government as we come to know it constantly ,ignores a complete over haul on govenment assistance is so greatly needed like yesterday.cash assistance should include the ill,home less,etc and for a longer time if needed,there should not be time limit when this so called government as we know it Makes guide lines so tough to get govermnent grants to start own business,etc
Dang elderly, they're all socialist pinko slime democrats. You won't find republicans taking money from the government.
I know many Republicans who are on Social Security. Your statement proves you're an idiot!
Jim, clearly Jake had his "sarcasm" button set on high. Now who exactly is the idiot???
Jake is. We paid into the system against our will, we'll be damned if we dont't get every dime owed to us. The same goes for Medicare!
So we pay in for forty or more years and we are supposed to let other people have our money? If that isn't liberal entitlement mentality I don't know what is.
If liberals want to challenge conservatives they let people opt out! Conservatives would gladly do so and liberals can suck wind trying to keep their socialist utopia afloat.
Phil, most recipients are getting way more than they contributed. That's when it becomes an entitlement program.
Unfortunately, the discussion on both sides tend to be greed driven.
Opt out will increase the deficit in the medium term. As younger folks opt out and old folks continue to draw, the funds that would have been transferred from the "young" workers to the "retirees" need to be replaced. We will need to borrow the money. Once the current beneficiaries pass on, the younger retires will then draw on their "savings". You know why this idea has no real traction from conservatives? Because no one wants to be the one that has to say you need to borrow the money to fund the transition. That is why entitlement reform is focused on Medicare.
Phil, you don't understand mortality. Social Security was set for an age when most contributors would be dead within a few years, thereby never receiving as much as they paid in. What the government failed to prepare for, and rarely prepares for, was a different length of life in the future. Now people are not dying off at the rate they did when Soc. Sec. was created, and that's why the failed government assumptions, as corrected, are creating a fear that Soc. Sec. will run out of money. It was a Ponzi scheme which has failed. But no, as a group seniors are not getting more than they put in. Instead, the government has gutted Soc.Sec. to pay for other programs.
@Valhalla Phil
umm they did. its called america some 100 odd years ago. and they decided it wasnt working so they created medicare and social security.
i know republicans want re-litigate, if not completely erase, the past, but...sorry, its just not going to happen.
Yes people right now, especially if you are under 30, should prepare for your own retirement program, because Social Security and Medicare may not be around when you reach the retirement years.
One decent way of doing that is to invest in tax free bonds and tax free mutual funds. Have the interest roll over into the mutual funds, and the interest from the bonds, invest that in quality stocks, that pay good dividends.
Almost every program, from city thru the fed level has way too much waste of tax money. And each and everyone is controlled by the good old boys network. Doesn't matter what party, they all work hand in hand.
Until the waste, graft, etc is cut out of these programs, not much will happen to benefit the taxpayers.
SallyAnn,
Investing in tax free bonds and stocks with a nice yield is a great idea. But the important part is that the decision should be left to each individual, not have your money forcibly taken by the government, thrust into their program, and filtered back to you.
Everyone should save for their retirement. The purpose of Social Security has always been to keep the elderly from starving or freezing to death, not to live comfortably.
Why not let 'em starve to death? Much more efficient.
Severed head in a jar Shut the f up, you idi_t.
Social Security was created because:
This "let them eat cake" attitude of some on the right is as foolish now as it was when Marie Antionette had it.
That's a stupid statement. Conservatives want people to get what they put in, that is true of SS and Medicare. The problem is, the idiots in government spent it all and now that we need it, they don't have it.
Again, when you have 17 workers per retiree, you can afford to pay out more, when you have 3 you HAVE to scale back or those three become slaves. Also when you only live to 67 or so, the government only takes a two year hit. When you live to 97 it takes a 32 year hit.
As usual liberals flunk even the most rudimentary math.
Nobody flunked anything. The Seniors payed it they deserve it and they are the largets VOTING block in America. so go ahead and screw with them some more.
People under thirty should prepare to take the country back from the criminals that are running it now.
Phil - have you accounted the cost to run Socialist Security and Medicare. Based on this and the current news of how government employees are better compensated than their private industry counter parts, you should probably only receive 70% of what you put in the system.
How many of those elderly on social security entitlements received food stamps and housing assistance while they were the working tax paying households? How many of the working households drawing entitlements today are employed by a non union industry that is governed by the Dept of Agriculture? How many working entitlement households are employed by privately owned but heavily government regulated non union industries? How many entitlement working households are illegal immigrants . Tax breaks for industries with food stamps for their employees is deranged free market competition. Know wonder theirs an Occupy Movement !
"Know wonder theirs an Occupy Movement!"
No wonder there's an Occupy Movement! Think we need an Occupy Schools, to teach basic spelling. . .
Don't worry, if the current flock of conservatives get their way public schools will go the way of the dodo.
(When you can't refute the poster's point, mock his spelling and/or grammar.)
Sorry, Pat919. Dick Fromewerk doesn't edit, but will start because Pat919 got an internet GED and went on to graduate from accredited community college. You can spend your day correcting grammar on blogs Pat ,or you can sneak out of your government subsidized jobber and go eat some ice cream.
Severed, we fund our schools with the highest per capita amount in the world yet third world nations are ranked higher than we are. I pray that public schools, run by idiot liberals and teachers unions, go the way of the dodo.
Charter schools and home schooling outperforms public schools by a wide margin, it's not the kids or the parents.
I never had a liberal teacher while enrolled in a public school. If anything I had more conservative leaning teachers. Stop with the teacher stereotypes ok? They work their asses off and people disparage them at every opportunity.
Valhalla Phil still does not comprehend that all politicians work for the Cartel of Banks who control our ecomomy. dem. or rep. ,lib or cons. it does not matter what has changed since 9/11? Less freedom and more debt. The government works for central banking who in turn works for the bank of International settlements. Follow the money. Everything else is just noise.
Satanick - have you seen the film "Waiting for Superman". Yes there are a lot of hard working teachers out there, but they keep getting held back by the wreckless teachers unions.
Who's using government benefits: Mostly corporations! Come on msnbc. If you're going to talk about government benefits, you need to address that most uncomfortable fact that big business gets the most money from government; including your own Comcast and G.E. Of course, since Comcast and G.E. aren't interested in msnbc publishing any articles about their handouts from government, those most important facts are omitted from the article.
That's why I have to get my news from overseas outlets. How sad.
When Medicare was established, they had no idea that the future would bring seniors living well into their 90's, with a whole slew of brand-new (expensive) medical treatments that were developed because the developers KNEW that they would turn a nice profit...because of Medicare reimbursement. While it's wonderful that seniors have so much technology helping them live longer, it's costing a whole lot more than they ever contributed during their lifetime. My own parents (ages 85+) have cost Medicare close to a million dollars (!!), and they didn't pay anything remotely like that into the system. Multiply that by several million, and you can see the problem...
They collectively paid in with all the other seniors and Congress used the money and went on Vacation. They didn't ppay it back in any way shape or form including with interest as promised. If they had left that money alone in the interest bearing accounts this wouldn't be an issue. What is being said is yeah you did it right and we lied cheated and stole your money so now you need to get less or die.
So what would be your solution? Take away your parents Medicare? These people worked in most cases 40 yrs or more, paid into the system and are now reaping the benefits.
But, I guess it would be easier to just take them out and shoot them after say age 70 or so? Think of all the money you'd save. Then you could give it all to the corporations and insurance companies to make up for all the business they will lose from these people.
I love the attitude of this present generation. I want, I want , I want and the hell with you. This is what comes of giving your kids every new toy on the market and every new gadget there is. They never grow up and face reality, but guess who they turn to when they can't meet their bills, or take that trendy vacation, or buy that new car?
Kind of hard to interpret these findings as obviously most of SS will go to the lelderly.
I'd like to see the same statistic for benefits spendng, excluding SS for the elderly. If my assumptions are correct, 36% of benefits, excluding the elderly, go to working households. Not sure exactly what that implies, but it's a much more useful statistic.
Mark, plus, where is that other 10% going. That means 27% is going to working households(?) or where?
So the people who have paid taxes for decades, paid into SS and Medicare are now getting the benefits in their old age!!! REally, they deserve it, there's no problem with either program except you can't keep the thieves (politicians) hands out of the money because they want it for all their other programs, including WARS. We the people paid into these funds, therefore we the people are entitled to OUR money when we are elderly.
I'm at the edge of "reaping" all these benefits that go to the elderly. This is just another attempt to pit classes of people against each other and finger point as to whose at fault because we can't make tough decisions to live within our means. I certainly don't speak for all the ederly, but I'd be OK with a means test for medicare and social security and other benefits. I've been blessed to have worked for nearly 45 years and I'm OK with not getting back every penny, or more, I put into medicare or social security.
I too am nearing retirement. I have an accounting that I have maintained since I started working that shows me exactly what I have paid into SS (including my employers share) and for FICA. I intend to get back every dime of it (plus a nominal 6% interst) then STOP. It is immoral of me to ask my (and your) children to support me in my dotage.
When they say "benefits" they imply that it's charity. But the Seniors have MORE than paid what they get back from Social Security: for decades the government has been trading the excess cash in the Soc. Sec. fund for a low-interest-paying bond that's specially made for and only sold to Soc. Sec. (no one else would buy such a low-interest security).
No one says the bank is giving me "benefits" when I withdraw money I previously deposited - so why is Social Security labeled that way - except by politicians to con the simpleminded?
Additionally, while Medicare benefits exceed what Seniors pay, there is a significant part of the cost paid for by Seniors.
So it would be more informative if the amount people and businesses pay into Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc. plus the profit the government makes on the money before paying it back is deducted out before claiming these people are receiving "benefits."
Exactly right - lumping Social Security Old Age Pension in with welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid and agricultural subsidies is totally bogus. The same can be said for Medicare up to the point that a taxpayer receives back his/her own contributions plus employer match. (What is the writer talking about when they say "Social Security Insurance"? - if it is SSI, that is "Supplemental Security Income", a welfare program.)
I am drawing my Social Security Old Age Pension. My employers and me have paid over $122,000 into my pension, not including interest earned. So for the first nine years (at least, probably 12-14 years with income on the deposit), my "government benefit" will be the US Treasury trickling my own money back. I paid income tax on a little more than half of that when first earned. Now when I get my pension, I pay income tax again on 85% of it. If I survive long enough to get my own money back (including the income tax I am now charged on my previously-taxed money) THEN I will be receiving a "government benefit".
BOTTOM LINE - if you paid nothing specifically for a financial payment, service, or item, it can be considered a government benefit when it is given to you. If you contributed to an individual account for it, like Social Security or Medicare, it is a benefit after you have received the value of your contribution in payments, services, or goods.
Like many others here, wait just a darned minute... I'm 72, have been retired for six years after 46 years in the workplace fulltime. I realized when I applied for Social Security that I had contributed to that fund, which our Congress has savaged, for 50 straight years. My paycheck had weekly deductions for Medicare. In retirement, we seniors are still paying into the Medicare fund, each and every month. And our Social Security payments are taxable by Uncle Sam. So, yes, we get lots of benefits, but we also have paid for them - and continue to pay. There are, in fact, work-arounds for Congress to deal with the obvious, long-term problems with these programs, but to do so, we need far fewer right-wing Republicans and far more reasonable, semi-courageous legislators who understand planning, the functionality of these programs and human need. What we need is smart leaders, not just dumb-asses who deal in hate, divisiveness and flat-out selfish polemics.
@sunbeam10
The 'real' truth of the matter is the money that you paid into the system you will never get out. But if you listen to the current crop of republicans they will have you believe that you don't 'deserve' the money you are living off of that's why they call it an 'entitlement'.
What the republicans don't want us to know is that the Social Security system is very solvent and has produced a surplus even during the Bush years because that's how Bush managed to balance his budget by taking money out of the social security 'surplus'.
What makes social security insolvent are the republicans who insist upon 'borrowing' this money and not paying it back. Then claiming that the system is 'insolvent' and we need to 'dismantle' it. They have been singing that song since FDR created Social Security. And they have been trying to take it away ever since.
I really would rather they start telling the truth about their party they are not 'fiscally responsible' would not know fiscal responsibility if it slapped them in the face and introduced itself.
Not only that but they cannot even balance a checkbook much less a budget, look what Bush did. Bush spent way more than Obama and he's trying to dig us out of this mess the republicans created.
You can lighten up on the partisan diatribe. Both parties have cooperated in savaging the original structure of Social Security.
Originally, wage earners did not pay income tax on SS contributions - democrats fixed that. Pensioners did not pay income tax on old age pensions - democrats fixed that. The SS "Trust Fund" was separate, off-budget, and untouchable - democrats fixed that (this really did not directly harm SS, as the Treasury must make the Trust Fund whole eventually, including income - it just delays deficit spending and higher interest for general spending.) In other words, when the money is appropriated to make the Trust Fund whole, it appears that the money for "benefits" is coming from the general fund - not true. All of these things could be undone by any Congress, if they had the will.
The idea that any payment to an individual from the government is a benefit, regardless of the individual's contribution to an account, is not a right-wing notion - it is a liberal idea.
I keep remembering a TV discussion of Social Security, where a woman stood up and said, so help me, that she was a doctor who was concerned about her mother's Social Security. At that I started screaming at the television, "If you are a doctor, you can afford to support your own mother, and that's what you should be doing!" I even started thinking that there should be a means test for the recipients' parents, as well as the recipients themselves. I mean, supporting your elderly parents is what decent people have always done.
Nobody ever takes care of their parents. Some of us are more fortunate than others, but we have to remember that the real reason social security was created was to stop old people from begging in the streets for money.
Which if given the opportunity republicans would enjoy seeing yet again.
The GOP caused the First Great Depression. The Democrats, under the leadership of FDR, pulled the Nation out of the First Great Depression. The Democrats, under the leadership of President Clinton, lead the Nation to a budget surplus until the failed reign of King George, II blow all of it, every cent and then continued to lose the Nation's money at a rate that was "impressive" even by all of King George's previous business failures combined. Then King George drives the Nation into the Second Great Depression and the failed policies of the GOP cause the Nation to nearly go bankrupt. Thankfully, the Democrats under the leadership of President Obama has pulled the Nation out of the Second Great Depression that the failed policies of the GOP have caused the Nation to endure. The evidence proves the GOP is a bunch of failures. Facts are facts and we all knew that the GOP was wrong but now there is unlimited evidence to prove they were wrong. Where I come from if you keep making "dire warnings" that the Democrats are ruining the economy and that never occurs then the GOP is wrong. If the GOP keeps saying entitlements are bankrupting the Nation and they make these "dire warnings" for seventy-five years and they never, ever, ever come true then the GOP is wrong. The GOP and especially Ron and Rand Paul have been wrongly criticizing Chairman Bernanke and saying he was ruining the economy. They forget the GOP drove the Nation into the Second Great Depression and Chairman Bernanke has implemented the plan that has ended the GOP'S Second Greta Depression. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Flip Romney and every other GOP candidate or politician who opposed stimulating the economy should be forced to eat crow on the floor of the Capital. If you keep screaming that the sky is falling and it never does then you prove to everybody you are wrong.
Though I agree with what you say about the Republicans you have to give credit where credit is due. Clinton and the corporate democrats played a big role in creating the current depression. The Obama administration is packed with Wall Street insiders many of them helped cause our present circumstances.
Neither party has clean hands
G-9 TROLL , how can you stimulate the economy by borrowing money when you do not produce anything except service jobs. Service jobs are when you pay somebody for doing something for you. NOTHING PRODUCED. 16 TRILLION in debt and growing. There is not enough fiat cash in the world to pay it back! So borrow more? When nations borrow more from those PRIVATE BANKS where do they get the money? They just create it out of nothing. Why did nations give them that power? What do they (cartel Bankers)do for the planet other than take a profit from misery? Why do governments let it continue? Is it because the wealthy are better than the reat? Are the people of a Nation governed by the Banks or their elected officials? Why do bankers get to make the laws for the Greek people if the money that was borrowed by Greece never existed until the banks created it? Find the answers to those questions then you might see the light. If you're a TROLL then these questions are wasted on you.
I think a lot of more people are applying for and going on disability. The percentages have been growing alot recently I see alot of ads by attorneys that speciialize in disability cases. This is one area that is potentially ripe for fraud. Another racket to bilk the government.
I've the same impression. I know some people who claim disability but that disability doesn't extend to many of their non-work activities. Do you reckon that policing this and other such programs would be worth the expense it'd take. Maybe the penalty for taking disability inappropriately should be to be disabled. Nah. Just kidding. Kinda-sorta.
RE SSDI: Attorney fee agreements must be on a contingency basis (meaning the attorney will only be paid if you win your disability claim) and must be limited to 25% of the past-due benefits you are awarded (up to a maximum of $6,000). Note that the attorney will be paid only out of your past-due benefits, or "backpay." If no back-dated benefits are awarded, the attorney will not receive a fee; nor is he or she permitted to ask you for one.
The SSA is allowed to take the entire lawyer's fee (up to $6,000) from your first disability check, before the agency sends it to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That said, it can be two years before your case is adjudicated; as many as 65% of initial claims for disability are rejected. A lot of recent claims come on the heels of the Great Recession where an inordinate number of workers 50+ have lost jobs and cannot physically perform some work out there. When you've been on your knees for 35-40 years laying carpet or tiling floors, you've likely already had one or more surgeries on said knees AND back.
I have two siblings who receive SSDI: one for physical disability (the second worst case the judge had ever seen, approved on the spot) and one with developmental disability, born with it but who managed to work until she was in her mid-40s. Both cases required extensive medical/psychological exams, records going back years, current exams by state-appointed doctors, background investigation and interviews with former employers, family, physicians, paperwork up the you-know-where. Back pay awards are taxable, regular income tax. AND if you had a long term disability contract with a private insurer, you may have to turn over the entire back pay, and more, to reimburse them - one sister ended up owing over $30K, plus the monthly LTD payment is permanently reduced by the amount of your monthly SSDI. So it's not all skittles and beer when applying for SSDI.
I know a lot of people that claim SSI and have a side job they don't report to the IRS.
Please, IRS, inform me on how to anonymously report these thieves!! Or just call me. You got my numbah.
I know a number of people on disability, myself included. I worked up until I couldn't any more. I take a number of medications every day in order to just get through the day and I was deliberately NOT taking those medications during working hours so that I COULD work and not open up my employer to liability issues. It took 18 months of application and then appeal before I was approved. While they CLAIM that you can work up to (I think) $800/mo while applying, the truth is that if you work AT ALL they will claim that you are not disabled. Now, I couldn't work so that wasn't an issue in my case. I still can't work because my chronic medical conditions make it so that I MAY be ok today, but I probably will only get the rough equivalent of about 4 hours of sleep IF I actually can sleep 8 hours.
I have an invisible disability. I have been adjudged permanently handicapped (physically) by my state government. I leave my house under my own steam about once a week because of severe fatigue, muscle pain, nerve pain, joint pain, vertigo etc. Imagine the worst case of 'flu you have ever had ... and imagine living feeling like that at least 300 days a year. For people with my conditions, the "10 point pain index" you see in hospitals almost NEVER gets down below a 5 - and that's WITH the medications I've been prescribed. I LIVE at a 6 ... and that's a chronic pain ADJUSTED 6 which for many people would be about an 8 - and I've been living with this condition for over 30 years so I've learned just about every freaking way to adjust to the pain that anybody could learn.
In addition, you're allowed to work a small amount while on disability. If it goes beyond a certain monetary amount, you lose all disability benefits.
If you know someone is defrauding Social Security about being disabled, contact your local Social Security office with the name and address of the person who is committing fraud. ANY person receiving disability legitimately will thank you for your report since those of us who ARE disabled are frankly tired of people assuming that we're all faking it or frauds. Social Security does NOT take fraud lightly and those people can be arrested, jailed and forced to pay back every single penny that they fraudulently took from the government. Those people saying that 50% of people on disability are frauds simply are either naive, deliberately lying to make a political point, heartless or just ignorant.
Anonymous 1846098: If you want to blow the whistle on a suspected SSA DIB/SSI fraud, just collect your facts, and report the information to the Social Security Administration "800" number, and follow their instructions.
However, 1) be aware that a combined income from wages, SSA, and SSI cannot go above a pre-determined limit. If it is below the poverty level, no IRS tax return is required. 2) Know that malicious reporting carries very unpleasant consequences.
The SS Disability program is a big mess. The benefits are structured to encourage some unethical persons to claim when not truly disabled (had to laugh when I saw a 'judge' show on TV - a young woman testified that she received SS disability for "panic attacks".)
Back when SS was sending annual statements of earnings, they estimated that I could collect $1,816 at full retirement age of 66, if I keep working at present wage. If I retire right now (2010, last statements) on disability my payment would be $1,857. Duh, I'll take the larger amount now, please. The monthly payment should be capped at estimated amount at full retirement age.
Because of rampant abuse, the SS cracked down and began denying everyone - even those truly and obviously disabled by serious conditions. The attorney industry was thrilled. They set up shops to do nothing but fight the SSA, who evidently feel that claimants who are not willing to hire an attorney probably don't need it that badly. Sadly, the contingent attorney gets a chunk of any successful claim (I assume that's for life, a piece of every deposit?.) The huge backlog of claims = job security for SS clerks, supervisors, lawyers, and judges.
They really need to quit calling Social Security an "entitlement." Social Security was paid into by employees and that's the way it is. I do not put Social Security in the same category as Medicaid and WIC. Medicaid and WIC are for people who can't afford services. Social Security is for people who paid into the system and worked. The more you worked, the more you get in SS benefits. Makes sense to me.
And yet the Supreme Court has ruled NUMEROUS TIMES that the money you paid into SS IS NOT YOURS.
Mikki, I don't understand your point. So are SS recipients "entitled" to their payments or not?
"Entitlement" is intended to be a neutral term, not the negative that you and so many others assume.
Regardless.... survive.
I am one of that 53%. Give me the option of a Soylent Green exit and in due time I'll avail myself of it. I'll have a peaceful, dignified exit and those of you who're concerned about your taxes will have one fewer on your "entitlement" roles. Whaddaya say?
I believe helping the elderly was and should be the main intent of these benefits. We should help the elderly that need it if we are good people.
Please feel free to personally do so. I do. But don't force me to do it. That's just theft.
Social Security benefits are not paid from general government revenue, but by payroll taxes. Part of Medicare benefits also comes from payroll taxes. To include them in this "study" invalidates the results.
I think this is fantastic. I am glad that my money is going to help the elderly. It is better than going to bombs to kill children and some billionaire politician's sneaky corporate raider tax cut.
How f stupid are the people that write these reports? Social Security and Medicare for the elderly retired is bought and paid for by the recipients. How in the hell is that an entitlement - other than the fact that that the government took our own money and now is trying to make us bow to them for them returning to us our own damn money. Articles like this are classic examples of why I do not trust government statistics or reports. Please dont waste the band width with trash like this.
Dear Allison Linn, somewhat surprised that you append your name to this article. But I have saved your name so that I know to not waste my time reading your trash. Please go back and finish high school, and look around for the county library when you get to the point of being able to read and comprehend and start learning about how things work.
Who benefits most from government? People in government. We have a government run by and for the benefit of those in government.
You pay in, it pays out. You don't pay in, it doesn't pay out.
Kind of like gambling.
You know, the way most SSI beneficiaries spend their money. Casino!!!!!!!!!
I work in healthcare and even some of the elderly get a sense of entitlement. They will demand you give them everything Medicare will pay for even if they don't need it. Obviously if it is not medically necessary we don't provide it but regardless there are some that have that mentality as well, though rare.
I'm all for drug testing all welfare recipients, too. You know, to redirect conversation away from the main topic...
And another for that idea -- where are the results on illegal immigrants that claim income through their children they purposely birthed here? Because a child cannot cash in on food stamps............. but they mama and daddy can!!
In Kansas now, American born kids of illegals do not get food stamp benefits, their parents do not get the food stamps.
Social Security is not (yet) an entitlement, it is the forced purchase of an annuity. So SS does not draw from general revenues. Medicare is a partial entitlement because of the shortfall of premium payments relative to cost. By far, the largest entitlement is Medicade.
Good for you Joe, there is a lot of finger pointing towards the elderly that have worked thier butts off,payed taxes,S.S. and into medicare. Served thier country and now I still do not here so much about the people who never have done any of the above sucking the system dry and never putting a penny into it. The working elderly built this country,fought for it and deserve everything due them period !
I'd rather an elderly person get SS payments than some lazy thug who claims a gunshot wound as grounds for disablity. Happens every day in my town, people lining up for food stamps and social security and then driving off in Escalades.
I think the new form has an initial question "Are you a baby momma?"
If yes, you're approved. If no, fill out the 24 page questionaire and the last question is "Are you a baby momma?" If no, you're disapproved.
"Social Security is not (yet) an entitlement, it is the forced purchase of an annuity."
Exactly right! Given the choice I would have made an investment with a higher return. But the government didn't give me that chance. They took my money, figuratively at the point of a gun (and literally at the point of a gun if I had resisted), all of my working life. Now according to the SSI contract they imposed on me, they owe me money, and they had better pay what they owe.
JohnCarter, SS is not a "forced purchase of an annuity". Paymentts you made into the system went to those who were collecting S.S. during your working career. When you start collecting, the money will come from those who are still working.