[nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get labeled

[John Heim]

I meant SSI as in Social Security Income, not SSI as in Supplimentary  
Security Income. Old people get SSI and when people talk about Social  
Security going broke, they usually mean the Social Security  
programIncome  .



On Apr 24, 2010, at 12:24 PM, <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net> <ckrugman at sbcglobal.net 
 > wrote:

> Actually, there is already a means test for SSI as there are limits  
> on assetts that a reipient can have when they apply and may not go  
> over to continue their benefits. This means test has always been  
> there for SSI benefits.
> Chuck
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim"  
> <jheim at math.wisc.edu>
> To: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>; "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org 
> >
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 2:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not get  
> labeled
>
>
>> Dude, I haven't proposed spending an infinate amount of money. In  
>> fact, I haven't proposed *any* spending increases.  Actually, I  
>> proposed some decreases. I said eventually, we will have to raise  
>> the retirement age and institute a means test for SSI. I believe I  
>> said that twice, in fact. Apparently, you haven't been paying  
>> attention.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "qubit" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not  
>> get labeled
>>
>>
>>> ssi may not be in as much trouble as medicare, but medicare is  
>>> broken. And
>>> again, the government is rich, but not infinitely so. Isn't there  
>>> any limit
>>> in your mind John?  Borrowing from every country around the world  
>>> to make
>>> people think they have money doesn't make the government rich.
>>> Now I do go left on the following: I think ssi and ssdi should be  
>>> federal,
>>> and I think that Bush's plan to privatize social security was  
>>> horrifically
>>> flawed.  I fought it quite vocally at the time. If the stock  
>>> market isn't
>>> safe, why do you want to take and flush our program money in it?
>>> --le
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John G. Heim" <jheim at math.wisc.edu 
>>> >
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not  
>>> get labeled
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you must have been asking the wrong people then because the  
>>> answer is
>>> quite simple. Its because the government has the money.
>>>
>>> A program like SSI could never succeed on a voluntary basis. The  
>>> numbers
>>> just don't work out. Heck, as you are probably aware, the numbers  
>>> are kind
>>> of questionable even with the contributions being mandatory. SSI  
>>> is going to
>>> have a problem in a few years because there will be too many  
>>> recipients per
>>> contributor. That problem would be much, much worse if SSI  
>>> contributions
>>> weren't mandatory.
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm not too worried about the SSI trust fund running  
>>> out of
>>> money. Some changes will have to be made but they're not really  
>>> particularly
>>> tough choices. The only reason we don't do them today is that senior
>>> citizens have too much political clout in the USA. But eventually,  
>>> we'll
>>> have to face reality and raise the age of eligibility and put a  
>>> means test
>>> on SSI.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you're looking for an answer to the question of why SSI  
>>> has to be
>>> a government program, there it is. Its because only the government  
>>> can pass
>>> a law requiring people to contribute.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "RyanO" <ryano218 at comcast.net>
>>> To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] blind and wanting to improve things, not  
>>> get labeled
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chuck, I don't know you of course, but based on your comments,  
>>>> I'm tempted
>>>> to think that you don't receive social security or Medicare  
>>>> benefits. I
>>>> and many of my friends can relate horror story after horror story
>>>> involving the bureaucracy and ineptness of various government  
>>>> programs.
>>>> I've asked many liberals in amicable debates why they believe  
>>>> that the
>>>> government is better able to provide assistance than the private  
>>>> sector. I
>>>> ask on a historical, efficiency and motivational basis. At the  
>>>> end of the
>>>> arguments, though many platitudes come across, I've never  
>>>> received a solid
>>>> answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> RyanO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfb-talk mailing list
>>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfb-talk mailing list
>> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>