Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Two editorials for compromise
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,141
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 845
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
Two editorials for compromise
http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.
07-13-2018 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

The primary erosion of consumer spending power has come from medical care / insurance, education, and housing.

Social Security plugs into that between the retirees and the disabled because it is such a significant source of income (especially given fewer workers are covered by pension plans, though there seems to be an uptick in private disability insurance paid by employers which fills the gap until Social Security makes a decision then drops to being a supplement)

Healthcare funding, education and housing. If you can't find a way to agree to make the situation better even if it means not getting exactly what you want, it is probably time to leave and cash in on your experience at a law firm, lobbying firm, or as VP for governmental relations for someone.

I would add the opioid situation but it is so complex. Part of it is economic opportunity. Part of it is that it is cheaper to toss someone 60 oxycodones per month than send them to physical therapy or perform surgery, if 3% get addicted, that's not a bad business model either unless they switch to the street providers. Toss in some untreated mental illness. Add a dash of our national knee-jerk reflex and complete ignorance of capitalism and market theory so we are always trying to control everything with prohibition or limited prohibition on the supply side and never address demand side.

Hell we can't even do something as simple as taking pot off the controlled substance schedule and kicking the issue to the states in a legal manner. We just let the states flip off the Federal government while pretending we still are asserting Federal power. How damn hard is it to just say we quit. States you deal with it.
07-13-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 244
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #3
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.
07-14-2018 08:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-14-2018 08:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.

Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60
07-14-2018 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 244
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #5
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-14-2018 08:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.

Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60

The problem there isn't with the age, it's that we've watered down the requirements of what it means to be "disabled" to the point where many who have no business getting it are.

"Disabled" doesn't mean you can't do YOUR job anymore, it should mean you can't do ANY job anymore. Just because your back prohibits you from driving truck (for example) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other jobs you're perfectly capable of doing.
07-14-2018 09:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-14-2018 09:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.

Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60

The problem there isn't with the age, it's that we've watered down the requirements of what it means to be "disabled" to the point where many who have no business getting it are.

"Disabled" doesn't mean you can't do YOUR job anymore, it should mean you can't do ANY job anymore. Just because your back prohibits you from driving truck (for example) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other jobs you're perfectly capable of doing.

That's just not accurate.
In 2008 approximately 63% of all applicants for disability were approved, today it is around 43%.

The only "watering down" was when the so-called GRID rules. The rules presume that if a person can only regularly lift 10 pounds or less and is unskilled that at age 50 there is basically very little chance of finding full-time employment and at age 55 if you can regularly lift 20 pounds or less and are unskilled that you cannot find full-time employment. When adopted those ages were 15 and 10 years from retirement age, now they are 17 and 12 years from retirement age.

Truck drivers don't find a great deal of success applying for disability because they typically hold the skills required to be dispatchers.

Private disability plans typically pay if you cannot do your job. Social Security disability requires that you be unable to hold a forty hour a week job unless you fit under the GRID rules.
07-15-2018 12:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 244
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #7
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-15-2018 12:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 09:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-13-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/...the-middle

"...When it comes to immigration, the public also is at a far more sensible place than most politicians. The voters are squarely behind offering work permits and even a path to citizenship to DACA recipients and others here illegally, as long as we do whatever it takes to fix the problem of border security to stop people from coming in on an unregulated basis and to limit chain migration and lotteries. Less than one-third support closing down ICE, and the data makes you wonder what could be behind the left’s new rallying cry, given its very limited support...."

I don't really see the polls that support all of this that Clinton's pollster sees. But he suggests not looking to the fringes of the parties.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...37517.html

"...Can our leaders in Congress be inspired, or shamed, into working together? The existing power structures in both the Democratic and Republican leadership have long been able to resist it, but those are breaking up. Rep. Paul Ryan is retiring and Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi will not be speaker either. New hierarchies will form and, with them, new opportunities to change the way Congress works. Partisanship won’t disappear but a far more closely divided House next year will force one of two paths for leaders -- paralysis or problem solving. While much could change, if Republicans ultimately hold their majority they will likely have fewer seats. If Democrats take the House back they aren’t likely to pick up many more than the 23 seats required to flip control. No speaker has control with a five- or seven-seat majority...."

Article suggests rule changes within the House to make compromise across party lines more likely and to enable the "problem solvers" group within the House.


There are some problems that need to be solved on a bi-partisan basis. Medicare, Social Security, Health care. We need a consensus on defense. I'm not sure that we need to go there on everything.

I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.

Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60

The problem there isn't with the age, it's that we've watered down the requirements of what it means to be "disabled" to the point where many who have no business getting it are.

"Disabled" doesn't mean you can't do YOUR job anymore, it should mean you can't do ANY job anymore. Just because your back prohibits you from driving truck (for example) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other jobs you're perfectly capable of doing.

That's just not accurate.
In 2008 approximately 63% of all applicants for disability were approved, today it is around 43%.

The only "watering down" was when the so-called GRID rules. The rules presume that if a person can only regularly lift 10 pounds or less and is unskilled that at age 50 there is basically very little chance of finding full-time employment and at age 55 if you can regularly lift 20 pounds or less and are unskilled that you cannot find full-time employment. When adopted those ages were 15 and 10 years from retirement age, now they are 17 and 12 years from retirement age.

Truck drivers don't find a great deal of success applying for disability because they typically hold the skills required to be dispatchers.

Private disability plans typically pay if you cannot do your job. Social Security disability requires that you be unable to hold a forty hour a week job unless you fit under the GRID rules.

Actually the approved rates have remained within a few percent between 2003-2017. The number of applicants went thru the roof, especially from 2008-2015. The result is the number of approved applicants per year have been pretty close to the same.

The problem I have is why should we change the "rules" for unskilled people? Last time I checked, everyone has the opportunity to get an education. Everyone has the opportunity to stick with a job and acquire additional skills and experience. I someone chose not to, tough. The country shouldn't have to pay of the nose for people's bad choices.

As for truck drivers, I know two personally who pulled the "disabled" scam. One supposedly hurt his back yet managed to drive his family across country every summer in the RV for vacation. The other hurt his leg in an accident and couldn't drive anymore. Was granted "disability" at 35 even though three were dozens of jobs he could do. He's 50 now, still milking the system and will continue to mile it until he transfers over to SSI. If he lives to 80, that will be 45 years of not doing a damn thing but taking. BTW, with all the tales we hear of doctors "over prescribing" pain meds, is it really out of the question to think that some of those same doctors would fudge "disability" exams?

We're $21 trillion in debt. The time for playing the sympathetic nice guy is long over. If we need to crack down and crack down hard so the vast majority can get what they were promised then so be it.
07-15-2018 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,148
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 695
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-15-2018 04:06 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-15-2018 12:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 09:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I doubt an immigration deal will ever get done.

The left wants a "path" for DACA and would probably like some sort of amnesty as well. The right wants border security and a wall. Neither side will get what they want without allowing the "other" to get what they want. Hence no deal.

Medicaid and SS could get done, but I think the only way to do that is to package some sort of deal that would raise the retirement age to probably 70 and raise the income cap which one can be taxed on. I doubt anything else will ever gain traction.

Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60

The problem there isn't with the age, it's that we've watered down the requirements of what it means to be "disabled" to the point where many who have no business getting it are.

"Disabled" doesn't mean you can't do YOUR job anymore, it should mean you can't do ANY job anymore. Just because your back prohibits you from driving truck (for example) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other jobs you're perfectly capable of doing.

That's just not accurate.
In 2008 approximately 63% of all applicants for disability were approved, today it is around 43%.

The only "watering down" was when the so-called GRID rules. The rules presume that if a person can only regularly lift 10 pounds or less and is unskilled that at age 50 there is basically very little chance of finding full-time employment and at age 55 if you can regularly lift 20 pounds or less and are unskilled that you cannot find full-time employment. When adopted those ages were 15 and 10 years from retirement age, now they are 17 and 12 years from retirement age.

Truck drivers don't find a great deal of success applying for disability because they typically hold the skills required to be dispatchers.

Private disability plans typically pay if you cannot do your job. Social Security disability requires that you be unable to hold a forty hour a week job unless you fit under the GRID rules.

Actually the approved rates have remained within a few percent between 2003-2017. The number of applicants went thru the roof, especially from 2008-2015. The result is the number of approved applicants per year have been pretty close to the same.

The problem I have is why should we change the "rules" for unskilled people? Last time I checked, everyone has the opportunity to get an education. Everyone has the opportunity to stick with a job and acquire additional skills and experience. I someone chose not to, tough. The country shouldn't have to pay of the nose for people's bad choices.

As for truck drivers, I know two personally who pulled the "disabled" scam. One supposedly hurt his back yet managed to drive his family across country every summer in the RV for vacation. The other hurt his leg in an accident and couldn't drive anymore. Was granted "disability" at 35 even though three were dozens of jobs he could do. He's 50 now, still milking the system and will continue to mile it until he transfers over to SSI. If he lives to 80, that will be 45 years of not doing a damn thing but taking. BTW, with all the tales we hear of doctors "over prescribing" pain meds, is it really out of the question to think that some of those same doctors would fudge "disability" exams?

We're $21 trillion in debt. The time for playing the sympathetic nice guy is long over. If we need to crack down and crack down hard so the vast majority can get what they were promised then so be it.

The only way the current government debt is relevant to Social Security is if we choose to not pay back the government securities held by the trust fund.

Ok. So let's look at your "unskilled" argument.
Say every damn American goes to college or gets a technical certificate. Then what?
Unskilled jobs will still exist and will still need to be filled and many will be filled by people who just crapped good money away to become skilled. I know from experience hiring that HR people are raising the minimum required education for many jobs just to weed people out. My wife was sent three candidates for a very low paying "administrative assistant" position. Literally answer phones, put stuff in envelopes, address envelopes. The three finalists were two people with bachelor's degrees and one with a masters. It is harder and harder to get a decent job as a cop without at least an associates degree and some agencies don't give a damn how much quality experience you have they will throw your application in the trash without a bachelor's degree. My sister-in-law wants to change cities. She has an associates RN, high caliber experience including serious management staffing responsibility heading the nursing staff at a hospital. No one in her desired city will consider for anything other than entry level and one hospital sent her a letter saying she was rejected because she lacked a bachelor's degree despite extensive surgical nurse experience, OB experience, and management experience. We are degree obsessed when those degrees aren't really needed to perform the job and exist solely to weed out applicants. That's inefficient.

So everyone gets post-K12 education, someone still has to stock shelves, someone still needs to clean restrooms, someone still has to brush out concrete, someone still has to cook the food and bring it to you.

As to the scam.
https://oig.ssa.gov/report-fraud-waste-or-abuse
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2018 10:06 AM by arkstfan.)
07-16-2018 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CAJUNNATION Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,433
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 38
I Root For: America
Location: Beyond the Sun.
Post: #9
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-16-2018 09:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Ok. So let's look at your "unskilled" argument.
Say every damn American goes to college or gets a technical certificate. Then what?
Unskilled jobs will still exist and will still need to be filled and many will be filled by people who just crapped good money away to become skilled. I know from experience hiring that HR people are raising the minimum required education for many jobs just to weed people out. My wife was sent three candidates for a very low paying "administrative assistant" position. Literally answer phones, put stuff in envelopes, address envelopes. The three finalists were two people with bachelor's degrees and one with a masters. It is harder and harder to get a decent job as a cop without at least an associates degree and some agencies don't give a damn how much quality experience you have they will throw your application in the trash without a bachelor's degree. My sister-in-law wants to change cities. She has an associates RN, high caliber experience including serious management staffing responsibility heading the nursing staff at a hospital. No one in her desired city will consider for anything other than entry level and one hospital sent her a letter saying she was rejected because she lacked a bachelor's degree despite extensive surgical nurse experience, OB experience, and management experience. We are degree obsessed when those degrees aren't really needed to perform the job and exist solely to weed out applicants. That's inefficient.

So everyone gets post-K12 education, someone still has to stock shelves, someone still needs to clean restrooms, someone still has to brush out concrete, someone still has to cook the food and bring it to you.


Higher education is a scam. It's a glorified pyramid scheme built on mountains of public debt.

I would say half of the incoming Freshmen should never have gone to college in the first place and half of the remaining Freshmen are in a dead major either wasting their parents money or burying themselves under those mountains.
(This post was last modified: 07-16-2018 02:08 PM by CAJUNNATION.)
07-16-2018 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,670
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 244
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #10
RE: Two editorials for compromise
(07-16-2018 09:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-15-2018 04:06 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-15-2018 12:06 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 09:00 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-14-2018 08:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Raising the retirement age wouldn't accomplish very much because it will increase the number of people qualifying for disability and increase the amount of time people are on disability.

If you compare people who attain age 62 their mortality rate is strongly related to lifetime earnings. People performing skilled work who earn more, live longer and are more likely to defer retirement (my father retired at age 74 and only because he was going to be off-work 6-10 weeks recovering from rotator cuff surgery).

Disability has been declining because so many boomers are now eligible to retire. All 1952 and earlier boomers are off disability along with about half of the 1953 boomers.

Any particular cohert becomes increasingly likely to apply for disability as they age with bumps at 50, 55, and 60

The problem there isn't with the age, it's that we've watered down the requirements of what it means to be "disabled" to the point where many who have no business getting it are.

"Disabled" doesn't mean you can't do YOUR job anymore, it should mean you can't do ANY job anymore. Just because your back prohibits you from driving truck (for example) doesn't mean there aren't hundreds of other jobs you're perfectly capable of doing.

That's just not accurate.
In 2008 approximately 63% of all applicants for disability were approved, today it is around 43%.

The only "watering down" was when the so-called GRID rules. The rules presume that if a person can only regularly lift 10 pounds or less and is unskilled that at age 50 there is basically very little chance of finding full-time employment and at age 55 if you can regularly lift 20 pounds or less and are unskilled that you cannot find full-time employment. When adopted those ages were 15 and 10 years from retirement age, now they are 17 and 12 years from retirement age.

Truck drivers don't find a great deal of success applying for disability because they typically hold the skills required to be dispatchers.

Private disability plans typically pay if you cannot do your job. Social Security disability requires that you be unable to hold a forty hour a week job unless you fit under the GRID rules.

Actually the approved rates have remained within a few percent between 2003-2017. The number of applicants went thru the roof, especially from 2008-2015. The result is the number of approved applicants per year have been pretty close to the same.

The problem I have is why should we change the "rules" for unskilled people? Last time I checked, everyone has the opportunity to get an education. Everyone has the opportunity to stick with a job and acquire additional skills and experience. I someone chose not to, tough. The country shouldn't have to pay of the nose for people's bad choices.

As for truck drivers, I know two personally who pulled the "disabled" scam. One supposedly hurt his back yet managed to drive his family across country every summer in the RV for vacation. The other hurt his leg in an accident and couldn't drive anymore. Was granted "disability" at 35 even though three were dozens of jobs he could do. He's 50 now, still milking the system and will continue to mile it until he transfers over to SSI. If he lives to 80, that will be 45 years of not doing a damn thing but taking. BTW, with all the tales we hear of doctors "over prescribing" pain meds, is it really out of the question to think that some of those same doctors would fudge "disability" exams?

We're $21 trillion in debt. The time for playing the sympathetic nice guy is long over. If we need to crack down and crack down hard so the vast majority can get what they were promised then so be it.

The only way the current government debt is relevant to Social Security is if we choose to not pay back the government securities held by the trust fund.

Ok. So let's look at your "unskilled" argument.
Say every damn American goes to college or gets a technical certificate. Then what?
Unskilled jobs will still exist and will still need to be filled and many will be filled by people who just crapped good money away to become skilled. I know from experience hiring that HR people are raising the minimum required education for many jobs just to weed people out. My wife was sent three candidates for a very low paying "administrative assistant" position. Literally answer phones, put stuff in envelopes, address envelopes. The three finalists were two people with bachelor's degrees and one with a masters. It is harder and harder to get a decent job as a cop without at least an associates degree and some agencies don't give a damn how much quality experience you have they will throw your application in the trash without a bachelor's degree. My sister-in-law wants to change cities. She has an associates RN, high caliber experience including serious management staffing responsibility heading the nursing staff at a hospital. No one in her desired city will consider for anything other than entry level and one hospital sent her a letter saying she was rejected because she lacked a bachelor's degree despite extensive surgical nurse experience, OB experience, and management experience. We are degree obsessed when those degrees aren't really needed to perform the job and exist solely to weed out applicants. That's inefficient.

So everyone gets post-K12 education, someone still has to stock shelves, someone still needs to clean restrooms, someone still has to brush out concrete, someone still has to cook the food and bring it to you.

As to the scam.
https://oig.ssa.gov/report-fraud-waste-or-abuse

As of 2014, there are IOU's for 2.8 Trillion in the "trust fund". Of course out national debt will affect that. Eventually you can't keep putting money on the card to pay back money you borrowed from another card.

As to the "unskilled", a life of flipping burgers shouldn't qualify someone for anything more than the average "degreed" person. I'm not saying everyone should go to college, but if a person chooses to swing a shovel for example, they shouldn't be entitled to go on "disability" because they broke down faster than the person in accounting. There are plenty of trades and skilled positions which don't require a degree and don't require one to break their back. If a person choose not to pursue one of those, that's on them.

Getting dealt a crappy hand shouldn't entitle a person to anything more than the rest of us.
07-16-2018 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.