Political Move Cave-In

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder how many people got SSDI for 38 years and then got employed?
 
jillio said:
You completely missed the point cmdrwhitewolf was making.:cool2:

Ah, the truth is finally coming out. That would have made so much more sense from the start than the outlandish claims you attempted to peddle.
Click to expand...



You are a real piece of work! Did cmdrwhitewolf suddenly pass away and leave you instructions. I'm sure cmdrwhitewolf can express the point being made without your unnecessary input.

You are certainly one deranged individual for what you post.
 
FROM THE 2011 RED BOOK.....SOCIAL SECURITY....SSA Pub.No64-030

page 12

Minimum Initial Qualification Requirements
_____________________
Must meet SSA's disability criteria.
Must be "insured" due to contributions made to FICA based on your own payroll earnings, or those of your spouse or your parents.

page 15\16

When Will Your Benefits Stop
____________________

If you receive SSDI benefits and we find that you no longer meet the requirements fire disability due either to work at SGA level or medical improvement, we say that your disability "ceased". __________________



What can be deducted from this information is, first, a deaf child will not have a medical improvement. I've known deaf to lose more hearing but have never met a deaf that had improved hearing. Second we can look at the fact parents mandatory pay FICA withholdings. Therefore a deaf child of theirs could receive SSDI based on being disable due to deafness and, because this is a non-improving situation, stay on SSDI for a possible lifetime.
 
Beowulf said:
I wonder how many people got SSDI for 38 years and then got employed?
Click to expand...

None.

And regarding the current discussion: the topic of the moment was the fact that one must have worked and paid into the system in order to receive SSDI benefits just as one must have worked and contributed to the system in order to receive Medicare benefits. SSDI is a form of disability insurance. To those facts, TxGolfer responded:

"Hardly the same as an employee who worked full time plus overtime for 38 years."

His implication was that someone who had worked for 38 years was more entitled to disability insurance payments through SSDI than someone who has worked less time. Oddly, his number is the exact same number of years that another poster was claiming to have worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week, and all holidays.

I asked which man who had worked for 38 years he was referring to. Now he denies ever making a statement regarding a man having worked for 38 years and paying into the SSDI system.

The fact is, it is entirely possible for someone to have worked half the time of the number referenced and have paid in more that the person employed for 38 years. It is also possible to do that working 1/3 of the time or even 1/4 of the time. Contribution amount is based on per pay period income. Depending upon the job one works and the level of pay one receives, longevity is not a determinant regarding how much one has paid into the surface.

Now, that is all cleared up.:)
 
jillio said:
None.

And regarding the current discussion: the topic of the moment was the fact that one must have worked and paid into the system in order to receive SSDI benefits just as one must have worked and contributed to the system in order to receive Medicare benefits. SSDI is a form of disability insurance. To those facts, TxGolfer responded:

"Hardly the same as an employee who worked full time plus overtime for 38 years."

His implication was that someone who had worked for 38 years was more entitled to disability insurance payments through SSDI than someone who has worked less time. Oddly, his number is the exact same number of years that another poster was claiming to have worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week, and all holidays.

I asked which man who had worked for 38 years he was referring to. Now he denies ever making a statement regarding a man having worked for 38 years and paying into the SSDI system.

The fact is, it is entirely possible for someone to have worked half the time of the number referenced and have paid in more that the person employed for 38 years. It is also possible to do that working 1/3 of the time or even 1/4 of the time. Contribution amount is based on per pay period income. Depending upon the job one works and the level of pay one receives, longevity is not a determinant regarding how much one has paid into the surface.

Now, that is all cleared up.:)
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it. :)
 
jillio said:
None.

And regarding the current discussion: the topic of the moment was the fact that one must have worked and paid into the system in order to receive SSDI benefits just as one must have worked and contributed to the system in order to receive Medicare benefits. SSDI is a form of disability insurance. To those facts, TxGolfer responded:

"Hardly the same as an employee who worked full time plus overtime for 38 years."

His implication was that someone who had worked for 38 years was more entitled to disability insurance payments through SSDI than someone who has worked less time. Oddly, his number is the exact same number of years that another poster was claiming to have worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week, and all holidays.

I asked which man who had worked for 38 years he was referring to. Now he denies ever making a statement regarding a man having worked for 38 years and paying into the SSDI system.

The fact is, it is entirely possible for someone to have worked half the time of the number referenced and have paid in more that the person employed for 38 years. It is also possible to do that working 1/3 of the time or even 1/4 of the time. Contribution amount is based on per pay period income. Depending upon the job one works and the level of pay one receives, longevity is not a determinant regarding how much one has paid into the surface.

Now, that is all cleared up.:)
Click to expand...

Nothing odd about it. I was obviously referring to that worker. Never disputed that. :)

You asked...
Which man are you referring to that has worked full time for 38 years and is drawing SSDI?
Click to expand...

I never said anything about that worker receiving SSDI.

There was no implication either. I flat out said several times that Rolling, a man who worked for the government for 38 years, earned his government benefits.

As for your last paragraph that is possibly true, although given that Rolling worked a great deal of overtime it would be unlikely one could do it in 1/3 or 1/4 of the time. The income level for SSA contribution is capped after all. It really depends on how much he was paid. Regardless, by working for 38 years Rolling EARNED his benefits, they were not "given"
 
TXgolfer said:
Nothing odd about it. I was obviously referring to that worker. Never disputed that. :)

You asked...


I never said anything about that worker receiving SSDI.

There was no implication either. I flat out said several times that Rolling, a man who worked for the government for 38 years, earned his government benefits.

As for your last paragraph that is possibly true, although given that Rolling worked a great deal of overtime it would be unlikely one could do it in 1/3 or 1/4 of the time. The income level for SSA contribution is capped after all. It really depends on how much he was paid. Regardless, by working for 38 years Rolling EARNED his benefits, they were not "given"
Click to expand...

Nor did anyone claim you said that worker was drawing SSDI.:dunno2: So why all the defensiveness over something that was not even suggested?

Rolling claims to have worked 7days a week, 12 hours a day, weekends and holidays included. I am not the only one that is suspect of that claim.

And those drawing SSDI earned their benefits, as well. Just like any other disability insurance would pay if premiums are paid to keep the policy in force. Just like your car insurance will pay for lost time and work and pain and suffering that is the result of an automobile accident, as long as your premiums have been paid. You are suggesting that those receiving SSDI have not earned their disability pay. That is a falsehood.
 
jillio said:
Nor did anyone claim you said that worker was drawing SSDI.:dunno2: So why all the defensiveness over something that was not even suggested?
Click to expand...

Which man are you referring to that has worked full time for 38 years and is drawing SSDI?
Click to expand...

jillio said:
Then you have altered your post. Because that is exactly what your post referred to.
Click to expand...



Rolling claims to have worked 7days a week, 12 hours a day, weekends and holidays included. I am not the only one that is suspect of that claim.
Click to expand...

:dunno:

And those drawing SSDI earned their benefits, as well. Just like any other disability insurance would pay if premiums are paid to keep the policy in force. Just like your car insurance will pay for lost time and work and pain and suffering that is the result of an automobile accident, as long as your premiums have been paid. You are suggesting that those receiving SSDI have not earned their disability pay. That is a falsehood.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on the definition of earned. Certainly they have "qualified" under the rules. You suggested that that Rolling was "taking advantage" of government benefits. You also suggested that people on SSDI had "earned" their benefits. I merely pointed out the minimum qualifications for SSDI. If those minimum qualifications fit the definition of "earned" certainly 38 years of labor would fit the definition of earned. If you don't agree with that you are entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Just learned that there's a new scandal involving Encana mines - Environmental Protection Agency found the link between fracking and contaminated drinking water in Wyoming.

The agency began investigating groundwater in Pavillion, Wyo., three years ago, after local residents reported that some of their drinking water had been fouled with a gasoline-like odour and had become undrinkable. The gas industry has 169 production wells near Pavillion, which sits on a native reservation and has fewer than 200 people.
In a series of studies, which involved sampling dozens of water wells and drilling two of its own test wells, the EPA discovered the strong presence of numerous contaminants – including gasoline, diesel and substances used in fracturing.


Encana on defensive over groundwater fouled by fracking - The Globe and Mail
 
DeafCaroline said:
Just learned that there's a new scandal involving Encana mines - Environmental Protection Agency found the link between fracking and contaminated drinking water in Wyoming.

The agency began investigating groundwater in Pavillion, Wyo., three years ago, after local residents reported that some of their drinking water had been fouled with a gasoline-like odour and had become undrinkable. The gas industry has 169 production wells near Pavillion, which sits on a native reservation and has fewer than 200 people.
In a series of studies, which involved sampling dozens of water wells and drilling two of its own test wells, the EPA discovered the strong presence of numerous contaminants – including gasoline, diesel and substances used in fracturing.


Encana on defensive over groundwater fouled by fracking - The Globe and Mail
Click to expand...

Interesting.
I found this a while back:
The Tyee – A Fracking Disaster in the Making: Report
 
Geology is different in where you go. There are deep aquifers and there are shallow aquifers such as in this case in Wyoming vs Pennsylvania, respectively. You have verticals well being drilled vs wells that drills horizontally to get to the deep gas deposits with the Wyoming case you'd have vertical wells. And then you have this:

In addition, the EPA notes what may be imprudent industry practices. Only two gas wells around Pavillion have “surface casing” – a protective metal sleeve inside a well that is cemented in place to prevent drilling fluids from leaking out – that goes deeper than the deepest water wells. That means almost every gas well has unprotected stretches at depths people draw water from.
Click to expand...

Practices of drilling holes without using well-cementing and construction techniques spell bad news which is normally the first line of defense against any water contamination (including saline water intrusion). Poor casing is problematic in many of the drilling practices. It's just not that alone but a variety of factors that can make contamination so much likely. Those things need to be spelled out and how to mitigate such contamination of groundwater. Underground pathways need to be understood better and that requires more data to be collected. Fate and transfer of contaminants need to be understood. The laps in certain regulations that may allow less stringent standards need to be looked at. For example, there are not a lot of body of documents detailing the effectiveness on the cementing in gas wells or the number of successful fracking jobs.

Like I said before in another post, I'm for passing the FRAC Act, a bill that would end hydraulic fracturing's exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act. That would be the first necessary step. The problem has been the companies use of proprietary fracking fluids who were not required to give details of the chemical makeup due to "trade secrets." This act would require oil and gas companies to disclose the names of the chemicals they used. I'm for collecting necessary data. More drilling controls research need to be done. Each region has it's own set of different geological and aquifer features and problems. Standards simply need to become more stringent once these relationships are better understood.
 
rolling7 said:
As usual, a certain poster is trying to be a know-it-all. Trying to tell me what I know and what I don't know but coming as close as possible to call me a liar. Fortunately for me, I kept all my old pay stubs, so I can prove all I said about U.S.P.S. More so, anyone can ask those who worked along side me about those 84 hrs weeks. Here is how it works: when I first started it was 10 pm to 10 am schedule with 30 minutes for "lunch", in addition to two paid 10 min. "coffee breaks".

This equal to a 40 hr.work week. The 3 1/2 hours of overtime each day equal 16 1/2 hrs. (we are now at 40 + 16.5 = 56.5) Then there is the two "suppose to be" off days of 11 1/2 hours (equal to 23 hrs.) So now we are at 56.5 + 23 = 79.5 hrs of accountable time. Where does this 84 hrs. come into play, you ask?
Easy, just do this 12 hrs. from clock-in until clock-out X 7 days = 84.

Illegal? What a laugh! Just tell that to all the deaf/hearing co-workers who suffered and lost their families along side me. I'm not saying it was always like this but it took years to cut back on MANDATORY overtime and off-days/holiday work.
Even then, the rules of must be allow to have one off-day a week were suspended during the month of December.

I'm also not saying that postal workers had an exclusive harsh working condition because I do know other jobs are just as demanding of the elements. I'm only making the point that a certain poster is saying I did not earn my retirement and I know all postal workers did earn every penny.

I've explain in my reply to Cheetah just what I think entitlement is and make no excuse for thinking this way. It is base on my experience with the people receiving assistance. I have meet those worthy and those unworthy. I look at it this way: every entitlement program is necessary for those truly deserving of assistance. I agree with Cheetah that both sides of the coin people cheating the programs and the programs short-changing people need an overhaul.

I'm not an expert on SSDI/SSI but having been around many, many deaf and knowing their life stories, I've form an opinion based on what they shared with me.
Click to expand...
Sheesh!! You worked 84 hours, Union are supposed to chew MGMT for that. I believe you that it's illegal and breaking contract rule. MGMT do break rules and forcing employees to work long hour. If I were you, I would just walk off once I reached 20 hours of OT before new Pay Period start. IF management demand me to work more than 20 hours. I would just screw them off and clock out. They can't get anyone trouble because it's the contract rule, 20 hours OT maximum. If they discipline you and you with Union, They will sorely lose!! So Don't be afraid!!! Be bold and tough with Mgmt. They actually a real wimp behind it.

For example.. I've worked between 12 to 13 hours a day for two weeks including 6th day Mgmt get pissed with me and saying you're the last person arrived here and what's going on. I say nothing and put stuff away and took off. I spoke with Union and they told me not to worry about it because it's MGMT's problem. Manager drafted me to work on my day off. Last year, I did work bit more than 13 hours plus on 6th day, I was supposed to work 8 hours but I worked 10 hours. Mgmt was soooo pissed at me ( I actually pushing button on them) and they gave me day off :lol: I didn't care tho.

Right now, I'm not working OT much. Even I finished my work early, Mgmt tend to send me out to help other co worker. Sometime My co worker don't need my help and I head back to station and told my boss he don't need my help. and clocked out regular time out.

AS for Entitlements, Deafie get entitlement easily because of disability requirements met by SSI, SSA or SSDI.

My friend who worked for trash company as welder and he have shoulder injury and would not be able to return to work until March 2012. He don't have work compensation!! Because the trash company sent him to their Dr and Dr say that he's not qualify enough to get compensation. Sheesh. Imagine that he have knee problem and had surgery then shoulder. All came from his work but his company denied him. He was pissed already. He is consulting with attorney to help him fight for work comp.

Catty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top