Unfit for Work: the startling rise of disability in America

[IGotWorms 4,058]

What you don't understand is that the SSI rolls doubled in 4 years under Obama. It is not the percentage approved that is important but the number added to the SSI rolls.

 

Can you grasp this simple concept? 40.3% of 1 million is less than 35.3% of two million.

 

Actually the increased number of rejected applications should show you just how bad the State of the Union is.

 

Did you know that under Obama more people when on SSI than found new jobs? That has never happened before, it is not even close.

 

Holy fock you are stupid.

 

The problem is not that it's easier to get on disability. The problem is that so many more are applying that EVEN WITH MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS there are more and more being added to the rolls.

 

Why is that? Well if you had bothered to read the damn article you might have seen that historically there is a correlation between unemployment and "disability". With welfare reform followed by economic collapse, it's not hard to see why the rolls are swelling. Then you add on the states.trying to decrease their welfare rolls due to very tight budgets because of the economic times. With all that going on the rolls would've swelled under anyone barring a structural change to the system, which as far as I know has not been proposed by Republicans or Democrats.

 

What I wanted to talk about--what the point of this thread was--was why we might have this absurd system in place and why nobody--not Obama, not W, not Clinton, nobody, Republican or Democrat--seems willing to even raise the issue.

 

But then the usual uninformed idiots waltzed in and tried to make this into an R vs D thing, like every g0ddamn subject.

 

Seriously, you wonder why America is unable to deal with even the simplest of issues these days? THIS THREAD IS WHY. A person can't even raise a focking issue before the fingerpointing and misinformation begins.

[jerryskids 6,827]

 

What I wanted to talk about--what the point of this thread was--was why we might have this absurd system in place and why nobody--not Obama, not W, not Clinton, nobody, Republican or Democrat--seems willing to even raise the issue.

 

 

Well... it has been discussed here that W wasn't as conservative as he purported to be. I suspect that it is all part of the "house of cards" that our country has been living in for quite some time. I'm sure it helps presidents to manipulate the unemployment numbers to look more positive than it really is.

 

I'm wondering if any of our new breed of conservatives -- Rand, Rubio, Cruz, Gindal -- will actually take this on. Whoever does would probably get my vote.

[Strike 5,570]

 

I'm wondering if any of our new breed of conservatives -- Rand, Rubio, Cruz, Gindal -- will actually take this on. Whoever does would probably get my vote.

 

The problem is they won't get Peenie's and all who think like her. And they care more about that vote, yours, or the welfare of the country in general.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Average percentage of SSD applications approved 2001-2008: 40.3%

 

Average percentage of SSD applications approved 2009-2012: 35.3%

 

What exactly is he correct about?

 

He made this statement:

 

I don't know for a fact, but I'd be willing to bet that it is alot easier to get paid for falsely claiming disability during our current administration versus any time else in our history

 

He said he didn't know for a fact, but he would be willing to bet. How can he be wrong with that statement? Are you claiming he was wrong when he said he would be willing to bet he was right?

 

Seems to me he is 100% correct that he would be willing to bet he was right. Your post with all the fancy avgs have nothing whatsoever to do with his statement, now does it?

[MDC 7,482]

Okay cliff notes version: what rule or regulation did Obummer change to encourage people to apply or make it easier to qualify for disability?

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

He made this statement:

 

 

 

He said he didn't know for a fact, but he would be willing to bet. How can he be wrong with that statement? Are you claiming he was wrong when he said he would be willing to bet he was right?

 

Seems to me he is 100% correct that he would be willing to bet he was right. Your post with all the fancy avgs have nothing whatsoever to do with his statement, now does it?

 

Good one Sematic Pilot.

[SUXBNME 1,515]

Good one Sematic Pilot.

That is all I said

[Recliner Pilot 61]

That is all I said

And it got the bored tardnuts all worked up.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

He made this statement:

 

 

 

He said he didn't know for a fact, but he would be willing to bet. How can he be wrong with that statement? Are you claiming he was wrong when he said he would be willing to bet he was right?

 

Seems to me he is 100% correct that he would be willing to bet he was right. Your post with all the fancy avgs have nothing whatsoever to do with his statement, now does it?

 

 

That is all I said

 

Strange that Sux brought links and stats, if all he wanted to say was it was "something he believed".

 

And yeah a big sarcastic "RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" to RP, who's been posting Sux is 100% right repeatedly based on the fact that Sux was willing to make a bet. I'm sure RP isn't pointing out this technicality at all now that it's been decisively proven Sux was 100% wrong in his assertion.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Well... it has been discussed here that W wasn't as conservative as he purported to be. I suspect that it is all part of the "house of cards" that our country has been living in for quite some time. I'm sure it helps presidents to manipulate the unemployment numbers to look more positive than it really is.

 

I'm wondering if any of our new breed of conservatives -- Rand, Rubio, Cruz, Gindal -- will actually take this on. Whoever does would probably get my vote.

 

The first line of your response is garbage. But I can see from the rest of your post that you do want to discuss the actual issue.

 

My guess is that the powers that be have concluded that there simply isn't going to be work for some of these people. Thet are generally low-skilled and uneducated. Back in the day they would have made fine factory workers or laborers, but we don't have too many of thosr jobs anymore. What factory jobs we do have left are so heavily automated that fewer workmen are required and those they do have must have some skill and education aince their primary job is overseeing sophisticated machinery.

 

Onviously this is an oversimplified explanation, but doesn't it explain the system to an extent? That there is a certain subset of people who are simply very unlikely to find consistent gainful employment and thus the "disability" system is in some way used to account for them?

 

I'm not saying its a good thing, BTW, just trying to figure out why nobody seems to want to upset the cart.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Strange that Sux brought links and stats, if all he wanted to say was it was "something he believed".

 

And yeah a big sarcastic "RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" to RP, who's been posting Sux is 100% right repeatedly based on the fact that Sux was willing to make a bet. I'm sure RP isn't pointing out this technicality at all now that it's been decisively proven Sux was 100% wrong in his assertion.

It is always funny when your lack of reading comprehension skills gets exposed and you start crying "semantics".

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

It is always funny when your lack of reading comprehension skills gets exposed and you start crying "semantics".

 

Strange...a search for Mike Honcho and sematic...returned 1 result, this thread. More lies from Recliner Pilot.

[SUXBNME 1,515]

Strange that Sux brought links and stats, if all he wanted to say was it was "something he believed".

 

And yeah a big sarcastic "RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" to RP, who's been posting Sux is 100% right repeatedly based on the fact that Sux was willing to make a bet. I'm sure RP isn't pointing out this technicality at all now that it's been decisively proven Sux was 100% wrong in his assertion.

I still think I'm correct.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Strange...a search for Mike Honcho and sematic...returned 1 result, this thread. More lies from Recliner Pilot.

So, a search for "sematic" didn't get any 'semantic' results.

 

Weird.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

So, a search for "sematic" didn't get any 'semantic' results.

 

Weird.

 

Way to point out my typo's. You can be my secretary(you're already my b!tch).

 

And in the interest of full disclosure, they're were 2 posts where I quoted someone using the term "semantics"

 

So where aer these other posts where I semantics...or was that just another lie?

[SUXBNME 1,515]

Strange that Sux brought links and stats, if all he wanted to say was it was "something he believed".

 

And yeah a big sarcastic "RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" to RP, who's been posting Sux is 100% right repeatedly based on the fact that Sux was willing to make a bet. I'm sure RP isn't pointing out this technicality at all now that it's been decisively proven Sux was 100% wrong in his assertion.

Initially all that I was saying is that it was "something I believed". The next day I did a quick search and found an article in Forbes that proved with my belief.

Now we got Nikki 'are batteries electric?' 2200 saying I'm wrong again.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Way to point out my typo's. You can be my secretary(you're already my b!tch).

 

And in the interest of full disclosure, they're were 2 posts where I quoted someone using the term "semantics"

 

So where aer these other posts where I semantics...or was that just another lie?

Where did I say you had other posts besides the ones in this thread.

 

Wow! Reading comprehension.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

It is always funny when your lack of reading comprehension skills gets exposed and you start crying "semantics".

 

 

Where did I say you had other posts besides the ones in this thread.

 

Wow! Reading comprehension.

 

Always means it's happened more than once. Ooops...

 

Nice try liar.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Always means it's happened more than once. Ooops...

Always means 'every time'. Doesn't require multiple times, but you whined about in multiple posts in the thread, Tardnut.

 

You should stay down.

 

The combination of your shiitty reading skills and my mad semantics skills is kicking your ass. :overhead:

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Sux is still 100% correct.

[Mike Honcho 5,294]

Always means 'every time'. Doesn't require multiple times, but you whined about in multiple posts in the thread, Tardnut.

 

You should stay down.

 

The combination of your shiitty reading skills and my mad semantics skills is kicking your ass. :overhead:

 

So you use "every time" for an instance of one...

 

I will agree you are "mad"

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Initially all that I was saying is that it was "something I believed". The next day I did a quick search and found an article in Forbes that proved with my belief.

Now we got Nikki 'are batteries electric?' 2200 saying I'm wrong again.

 

You came in with a preconceived belief. You then sought out something to verify your belief. You found an article that might support your belief in isolation, except not when considering the context put forth in the article that formed the basis of this thread. The article you refused to read, BTW.

 

[jerryskids 6,827]

The first line of your response is garbage. But I can see from the rest of your post that you do want to discuss the actual issue.

 

My guess is that the powers that be have concluded that there simply isn't going to be work for some of these people. Thet are generally low-skilled and uneducated. Back in the day they would have made fine factory workers or laborers, but we don't have too many of thosr jobs anymore. What factory jobs we do have left are so heavily automated that fewer workmen are required and those they do have must have some skill and education aince their primary job is overseeing sophisticated machinery.

 

Onviously this is an oversimplified explanation, but doesn't it explain the system to an extent? That there is a certain subset of people who are simply very unlikely to find consistent gainful employment and thus the "disability" system is in some way used to account for them?

 

I'm not saying its a good thing, BTW, just trying to figure out why nobody seems to want to upset the cart.

Why is the first sentence garbage?

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Why is the first sentence garbage?

 

That's what you want to discuss?

 

Okay, well it's garbage because this whole notion.that W "wasn't REALLY a conservative" is hogwash Republicans say to distance themselves and their ideology from his failed presidency.

 

He got elected as a conservative twice and conservatives overwhelmingly supported him right up to the last year or two of his presidency when it became overwhelmingly clear what a failure he had been.

 

Let me put it this way: if Obama is remembered as a failure, and four or five years from now I'm in here explaining that his failure wasn't really an indictment of liberal ideology because he wasn't REALLY a liberal, how much credence would you lend my post? Any at all??

[SUXBNME 1,515]

You came in with a preconceived belief. You then sought out something to verify your belief. You found an article that might support your belief in isolation, except not when considering the context put forth in the article that formed the basis of this thread. The article you refused to read, BTW.

 

I could care less about the context of the article. I still haven't read it.

I also shut your ass up real quick when I came back with proof

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I could care less about the context of the article. I still haven't read it.

I also shut your ass up real quick when I came back with proof

 

You did?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,450]

That's what you want to discuss?

 

Okay, well it's garbage because this whole notion.that W "wasn't REALLY a conservative" is hogwash Republicans say to distance themselves and their ideology from his failed presidency.

 

He got elected as a conservative twice and conservatives overwhelmingly supported him right up to the last year or two of his presidency when it became overwhelmingly clear what a failure he had been.

 

Let me put it this way: if Obama is remembered as a failure, and four or five years from now I'm in here explaining that his failure wasn't really an indictment of liberal ideology because he wasn't REALLY a liberal, how much credence would you lend my post? Any at all??

 

 

W wasn't a conservative. That's a fact. He may have wanted us to believe he was, but he wasn't. Conservatives voted for him because they didn't want Gore or Kerry.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

W wasn't a conservative. That's a fact. He may have wanted us to believe he was, but he wasn't. Conservatives voted for him because they didn't want Gore or Kerry.

 

:rolleyes:

 

This ^^^ is also what you would do to me if I ever tried to say the same about Obama not being a liberal

[MDC 7,482]

W wasn't a conservative. That's a fact. He may have wanted us to believe he was, but he wasn't.

 

Neither was Reagan, or any other Republican president ever. Maybe one day the GOP will nominate a true conservative.

[NewbieJr 541]

Neither was Reagan, or any other Republican president ever. Maybe one day the GOP will nominate a true conservative.

You rarely hear them disown Reagan though and say he wasn't a true conservative. Only the horrible ones.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,450]

:rolleyes:

 

This ^^^ is also what you would do to me if I ever tried to say the same about Obama not being a liberal

 

 

I voted for Bush because I couldn't stomach Gore. I know people who vited Obama over Romney for the same reason.

[MDC 7,482]

You rarely hear them disown Reagan though and say he wasn't a true conservative. Only the horrible ones.

 

You also never hear them mention W's 75% approval rating among Republicans when he left office.

 

I'm thinking the GOP isn't a Conservative party.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

You also never hear them mention W's 75% approval rating among Republicans when he left office.

 

That's what I'm saying. And IIRC it actually plummeted to 75%. Prior to his last year or so in office it was closer to 100%.

 

But now that everyone except RP agrees that he was the sh!ttiest president of the modern era, righties are saying they actually hated him all along.

[jerryskids 6,827]

That's what you want to discuss?

 

Okay, well it's garbage because this whole notion.that W "wasn't REALLY a conservative" is hogwash Republicans say to distance themselves and their ideology from his failed presidency.

 

He got elected as a conservative twice and conservatives overwhelmingly supported him right up to the last year or two of his presidency when it became overwhelmingly clear what a failure he had been.

 

Let me put it this way: if Obama is remembered as a failure, and four or five years from now I'm in here explaining that his failure wasn't really an indictment of liberal ideology because he wasn't REALLY a liberal, how much credence would you lend my post? Any at all??

I asked it because you went out of your way to make the response and I didn't know what you meant.

 

Let me rephrase my original post: Three presidents have basically punted this issue for the past 20 years. Ideologically, I would argue that to do so is more of a liberal position. I'd like to think that there is a candidate out there willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes on this one. If one accepts the premise that W wasn't terribly conservative, then one could hope that such a candidate emerges.

 

Or, you can argue that it doesn't matter what the ideology, the topic is too toxic for any president to take on, for a number of reasons (attacking the disabled, and intentionally making unemployment numbers look worse, off the top of my head). This is unfortunately the more likely scenario. I guess I'm hoping I'm wrong.

[SUXBNME 1,515]

That's what I'm saying. And IIRC it actually plummeted to 75%. Prior to his last year or so in office it was closer to 100%.

 

But now that everyone except RP agrees that he was the sh!ttiest president of the modern era, righties are saying they actually hated him all along.

Define modern era

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Define modern era

Apparently, Worms has been in a coma the past 4+ years.

[SUXBNME 1,515]

Apparently, Worms has been in a coma the past 34+ years.

fixed

[IGotWorms 4,058]

I asked it because you went out of your way to make the response and I didn't know what you meant.

 

Let me rephrase my original post: Three presidents have basically punted this issue for the past 20 years. Ideologically, I would argue that to do so is more of a liberal position. I'd like to think that there is a candidate out there willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes on this one. If one accepts the premise that W wasn't terribly conservative, then one could hope that such a candidate emerges.

 

Or, you can argue that it doesn't matter what the ideology, the topic is too toxic for any president to take on, for a number of reasons (attacking the disabled, and intentionally making unemployment numbers look worse, off the top of my head). This is unfortunately the more likely scenario. I guess I'm hoping I'm wrong.

 

You seem to think it is purely due to lack of political will that the problem is not addressed. I'm sure political will has something to do with it but I think it's more. I think there is an awareness that, fundamentally speaking, our modern-day labor market simply cannot provide for some people.

 

Sure many of them are lazy, but there are also many who are unskilled, uneducated, and not properly socialized to a workplace environment. There just aren't jobs for these people anymore. You used to stick them at gas stations but now everybody pumps their own gas. You used to put them in the factories but now it's mostly automated. You used to have them do janitorial work but now everybody wants that work too cheap so it goes to illegals and charitable organizations. So on and so forth.

 

So I wonder if maybe politicians look at the picture and realize that there just isn't much that can be done. Were we starting anew we certainly could devise a better system to account for these folk and we might even be able to structure a better overall economy, education system, etc. to minimize the number of folk in that situation. But we aren't starting from scratch and, as you point out, there's hardly any political will to really approach the problem with fresh eyes and all options on the table.

[jerryskids 6,827]

You seem to think it is purely due to lack of political will that the problem is not addressed. I'm sure political will has something to do with it but I think it's more. I think there is an awareness that, fundamentally speaking, our modern-day labor market simply cannot provide for some people.

 

Sure many of them are lazy, but there are also many who are unskilled, uneducated, and not properly socialized to a workplace environment. There just aren't jobs for these people anymore. You used to stick them at gas stations but now everybody pumps their own gas. You used to put them in the factories but now it's mostly automated. You used to have them do janitorial work but now everybody wants that work too cheap so it goes to illegals and charitable organizations. So on and so forth.

 

So I wonder if maybe politicians look at the picture and realize that there just isn't much that can be done. Were we starting anew we certainly could devise a better system to account for these folk and we might even be able to structure a better overall economy, education system, etc. to minimize the number of folk in that situation. But we aren't starting from scratch and, as you point out, there's hardly any political will to really approach the problem with fresh eyes and all options on the table.

It's like you are trying to pick a fight with me.

 

Let me re-rephrase: I had no idea that this was happening with disability. I think most here would agree. 19 years ago we had "welfare reform," and we thought that it was having some effect. Clearly it isn't. Recently there was a big stink about Obama trying to relax the requirements for welfare; apparently it doesn't matter, other than to shift where people are getting their money from.

 

Congress clearly knows about it, as does the administration du jour. But we are kept in the dark, being fed our MK-Ultra soma and thinking this isn't a problem.

 

I don't argue that there are people struggling. I'm not calling them lazy second-handers, although some might be. I'm just... flabbergasted that our country has given up on so many people, and that we think we can sustain this indefinitely.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

It's like you are trying to pick a fight with me.

 

Let me re-rephrase: I had no idea that this was happening with disability. I think most here would agree. 19 years ago we had "welfare reform," and we thought that it was having some effect. Clearly it isn't. Recently there was a big stink about Obama trying to relax the requirements for welfare; apparently it doesn't matter, other than to shift where people are getting their money from.

 

Congress clearly knows about it, as does the administration du jour. But we are kept in the dark, being fed our MK-Ultra soma and thinking this isn't a problem.

 

I don't argue that there are people struggling. I'm not calling them lazy second-handers, although some might be. I'm just... flabbergasted that our country has given up on so many people, and that we think we can sustain this indefinitely.

 

No I'm not trying to start a fight. I agree with you on everything that you just posted above. Well minus the MK Ultra reference anyway.

 

I'm flabbergasted too, that we don't even ever hear about this. I mean, it would be one thing if this was discussed in the media and on political stages and the general consensus was "well, it's a pretty stupid system, but what are you gonna do?" That would be dumb enough, but no, we don't even have that. Instead nobody wants to even touch it at all. It's crazy.