Thursday, December 07, 2006

Okay, somebody this morning on one of my writing groups just had to say something about Social Security. They simply could not leave well enough alone.
Well, okay then, here we go!
For years my ex husband drew social security disability, not because he was actually disabled, at least not physically, but he was a drunk, and he did do drugs, so I guess in a way he was disabled.
But, his disability was of his own making and choosing. I can't remember a single time that I actually saw anyone hold a gun to his head and make him take that first drink or swallow that first pill, or snort that first line. His 'disability' was of his own making, and yet he drew full disability from Social Security because of it.
Okay, so maybe alcoholism IS a disease, but no one will ever convince me it isn't a disease of choice, so if that's what's on your mind, forget it. You won't sway me.
Now, my mother, God rest her soul, suffered serious debilitating illnesses the last fifteen years of her life. She had a diseased heart, emphysema, (okay, I know that particular malady is pretty much self inflicted, because we all know how hard the tobacco companies tried to dissuade people from smoking in the thirties, right?) rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer, which finally killed her in Jan. of 2003.
For years we all tried to get Momma on disability because honestly, she couldn't even walk from the kitchen to the bathroom without gasping for breath, so she sure as hell couldn't work.
But you know what, time and again she was denied. And why? Not because she wasn't disabled in the eyes of the Social Security, but because she had never worked outside the home and hadn't paid any money into the system.
Are you kidding me? My ex husband drew full disability from the time he was like twenty-eight, and I can probably count on my one hand the number of years he actually worked, and here's this drunken drug addict drawing full disability, and my Mother can't get squat.
Now, there's a system that works, don't you think? Stupid.
And here is my next rant about that failing system. I've worked lots, and paid in lots, and yet I keep hearing that there probably won't be any money in the kitty when it comes time for me to draw.
Well, above seems a good reason for that. And how about the executives who retire with pensions of fifty, a hundred or hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, and yet these greedy bastards still whine about that measly social security check and their Medicaid. Seems kind of stupid to me.
So then why in the blue hell is everyone so against privatizing Social Security? I mean doesn't it make good sense to anyone?
Say Joe Blow is thirty years old, makes $75,000.00 a year and his wife Sally Blow makes $52,000.00 a year. They have three kids, a mortgage and the usual bills families generate over the course of a life time. Given the raises that sometimes compensate for the cost of living hikes, these guys are doing all right.
Why can't Joe and Sally open an account, which should be tax free, by the way, and each put maybe four or five hundred dollars a month into this interest bearing account. Say this account is set up to where the Blows can not touch it until they retire. There's their retirement money, which is a hell of a lot more than they're gonna get from Social Security anyway.
Now granted, this probably won't work for the poor folks of which there are a helluva lot more than rich folks. So, poor folks continue to pay SS tax, and they get to have a decent shot at living and eating and getting their medicine when they retire.
Someone needs to really fix this system, because as it is now, it just doesn't work!
And for God's sake, please don't get me started on the IR freaking S! Bloodsucking swine!!
Have a great day, y'all.


Anonymous said...

Touche!!!! I agree 100000000%! The rich stay rich because they make damn sure the poor stay poor. We pay those birdbrains in Washington millions to ensure the rich stay that way and keep us little guys under thumb. Yes, we pay them, with our taxes (that they don't pay, especially ss). Originally members of Congress were only paid a pittance and had regular jobs. Then they got power and made themselves rich, at our expense.


Jeni said...

Came over here to change your lin spot on my blog to reflect this blog and in doing so, it answered my questions about this blog. Yep, I see rants will still be available.

The strange thing about the situation with your mother and the ss disability is that there are many people who have never worked a day in their lives and receive ssi disability - which is the lower payment amount than what is given to those who worked and paid into the system.

MY SOL's mother - had worked only maybe 6-8 months her entire life - not enough to be eligible for full ss disability, but she did receive ssi which also (since it is through the state, not really through regular ss payments) received state medical assistance (better than medicare, I might add). A cousin of mine who is severely mentally and physically challenged has received ssi almost her entire life - since the ssi part was established.

About all I can say with respect to the issues with your mother is that it does seem, much of the time, with this program and many others run by the govt., that the right hand knows not what the left is doing.

Win, lose or draw with these programs, they are indeed very frustrating to contend with!

Schuyler Thorpe said...

The problem with privatization, Linda, is that it's not a guaranteed source of steady income. The GOVERNMENT controls what you can and can't invest, and turning Social Security to Wall Street and the rich, will only net trillions in windfall profits for THEM--after the program becomes privatized--not you.

Again, the government is counting on people to be SUCKERS and make them believe that privatization will WORK.

Sadly, this won't. Google Chile's privatization plan back in the 80s. This is what Bush wants to base his idea on. And that idea FAILED. Many people lost their private account investments and ended up on the streets.

Britain did the same thing in the 80s with disastrous results. They had to go back to private state pensions because the program failed.

Many of the elderly suffered greatly as a result.

Don't forget, Linda: The Republicans have been trying for YEARS to dump the program--complaining that it just drains money away.

But what has drained the Social Security fund away was Bush's spending spree. He tapped into it to fund the rich's taxcuts and his stupid war.

There's nothing in it but IOUs now.