Mine Was Earned, Your's Is Welfare

I have long been struck by the oddity of the everyday Republican voter being so adamantly against "welfare" but not minding at all Social Security.

The refrain I usually hear, or see in memes on facebook is something like, "Entitlements?  My Social Security was EARNED by me and PAID IN by me!  It's not an entitlement!"

The premise then is that what the person had deducted from their paycheck from the age of 16 to 62 - 46 years - was then sufficient to cover what they will receive from the government from the age of 62 to 78 - 16 years.  Or, in some cases longer, but the guys who make this argument figure it's valid no matter what the math.  

It could be that a woman married in college, never held a job till she was divorced at 50, worked 12 years, then lived to 100.  In that case, she paid in for 12 years, and collected for 38.  But it's still not welfare, she "paid in".  Another may have worked from 14 to 68 - 54 years, then died of a heart attack at 72.  54 years paying in, and 4 years collecting.  Somehow neither of these people is on welfare, both paid in exactly properly, and both only got back "their" money.

Thank you for that insight, Whitey McPrivileged!

Now the truth is, it is voters being made to put in this money - over a great deal of time or hardly any - and those voters then sit by and watch their representatives spend that money on everything but a savings account for Social Security.  Having then watched them spend all the "savings" on wars, social programs, rockets to the Moon and such for 40 or 50 years, they then calmly hold out their hand afterward and ask, "Where's that money we saved?"

They know it will just be took from the next generation - as they complained loudly enough over the last generation taking it from them.  But somehow, that's not "welfare".  That's not a "Ponzi scheme".  That's somehow fair.

Well, what is fair to be put in, versus what then a person should get out?  I mean, few people have a problem with the "normal" case of 46 years of work for 16 years of Social Security - so is that then what is "fair"?

But wait, what of the military, who will take a boy of 17, let him work for them for but 20 years, then give him half pay for the rest of his life?  20 years in - and 42 years got back out!  Some how that's not welfare!

What of Congress or the President?  Did you know that one four year term gets the President "retirement" pay?  And that one two year term as a member of the House gets them "retirement" pay?

You may hold office in Congress at the age of 25.  So, let's see - 2 years in, leave at 27, and 51 years of collecting?  And that's not welfare?  Heck, I think that's the actual record of getting a ton back for virtually nothing in!

But wait, what of our "business leaders"?  CEOs, Bankers, Brokers?  For no more in than anyone else - so, zero - they "get back" billion dollar bailouts, tax breaks so vast that they are excused from paying taxes for decades, subsidies sufficient to buy entire industries and trillion dollar quantitative easings?  What's that "not welfare" add up to?  0 in, and infinity out?  Yeah, that's got to be the record.

Oh, but did I forget Donald's pet peeve?  Social Security Disability?  Yeah, I think I did forget that one.  That's where that's supposed to be "welfare".  Kind of odd, though, because that is paid for the EXACT same way as regular Social Security is paid for - by the workers.

A person receiving it gets it based on how much work they did before the disability.  If they worked more than some, they get a bit more than some.  Pretty much like Social Security retirement pay.  The more you work, the more you then get when you can't work any more.

Thus someone blinded at 18 might get $600 per month.  Kind of a crime to treat them so poorly, but that's another article.  If a person is blinded at the age of 30 though, then depending on income, it will be greater.  Say, perhaps, $800.  At 40, it might be - again, depending on many factors, but principally on work history, $1,000.  If they worked a ton more, and earned more money than average, then I think it can get up as high as $1,400, but that is pretty rare.

And not all that much, when you do the math.  Certainly not comparable to our 'retired' legislators.

How then is Social Security Disability "welfare"?  They work, they pay in, they get back.  Is it 42 years of work for 16 years of pay out?  No.  But nor is it 2 years of work for a half century of a pay out!  Instead, you see that it's about at "military" levels.  Anyone care to call the veterans "welfare bums"?  No?

But it's okay to call the disabled "welfare bums"?

Ahh, but I hear the cries from those reading this - "But...but...but...thems ain't 'real' disabilities!  They ain't blind, Ah ain't complainin' 'bout no blind folks!  They got like PTSD or Depression or Psychological crap that ain't real, thems the one Ahm upset with!"

Well, again, I might wonder how many of those Republicans are telling that to Veterans who return home with PTSD, Depression and "Psychological crap".  Though I'm sure they'd rush to assure me that when it's a vet, it's "real".  Because in Republican world, war is real, they get that, but life in general?  I guess one can only get their mind hurt and/or disabled by stuff they approve of.

War - yes.  Life - no.

Truth is, applying for Social Security Disability is no cake walk, nor is it easy to defraud.  The process generally takes around a year to a year and a half.  You cannot be working while you apply - ponder how that plays out.  Most all of the applications will be rejected.  Yeah, it's like 80% or thereabouts.  Not only your own doctors, but government selected doctors must sign off on this.  Paperwork backing must accompany the application.  Quite a bit of it. 

I have seen the application, and I sharply question the idiotic premise that those of our inner cities and trailer courts are educated sufficiently to pull this off in any noticeable number of cases.  Folks notoriously unable to see a job application through are all of a sudden up for a year and a half of doctors, bureaucrats, attorneys and such?  

Does this mean I'm saying no abuses take place?  Of course not.  There are those who game any system.  And just as there are those who put hardly anything into running the nation - that two year Congressman - and just as there are those who get far more back in retirement than they ever put in during their working years, and even just as some Veterans are gold-bricking dorks, so do some few abuse Social Security Disability.

Here's the thing, though.  I don't see Donald or the Republicans going after the Bankers to make sure they use those bailouts appropriately.  I see no oversight called for about our ex-Congressmen and Presidents who receive so much.  Did you know Jimmy Carter still has a nearly $200,000 per year office in Atlanta, Georgia paid for with our tax dollars?  

And he's the most frugal of the ex-Presidents, most claim half a million dollars annually for their own offices.  And that doesn't count any of their retirement salaries, Secret Service guards and on and on.

No, Republicans have no trouble with "welfare" they like.  Or their gramma's welfare.  Or the welfare they bank on when they turn 62.  More going to the person then they put in is NEVER a problem for them if they like the person.  Bankers, Veterans, former Senators, and THEMSELVES - it's all good.

But let some woman raped into suicidal depression collapse into PTSD, Social Anxiety Disorder, Agoraphobia and be unable to leave home, let alone go to work, and it's "Well, now hold on, how do we know she ain't fakin' it for all that free money?"  "Free" money she literally had to work for!

Well, you don't know if she's faking.  Just like you don't know whether the Veteran was brave or a coward trying to shirk his duty.  Or whether the Congressman was a statesman or a thief.  Or whether the retired guy was a hard worker or goofing off his entire career.  Or whether the banker made a poor investment choice or out right stole it.

And since you don't know, can't know, and never will know, it would be far more intellectually honest of Republicans, and their President, to stop pretending that this is some kind of "fairness" issue in which they just want to make sure no Working Joe is getting robbed by lazy bums.

Working Joes probably are being robbed for Lazy Bums, but those bums are more likely to be found in Congress and Wall Street then in the poor folk's single wides and one bedroom studio apartments. 

When you learn then of a man or woman on disability, do not be so ignorant as to think that if there is no cane, no wheelchair, no hearing aid, that they must then be faking.  To not be so hypocritical as to think that if it is a form YOU'RE not eligible for that it must not be "proper". 

What is good enough for every President and Congressman, what is good enough for every 20 year veteran, what is good enough for every person over 62, what is good enough for every Banker, and what is good enough for YOU reading this, is definitely good enough for those who had the misfortune to succumb to a disability that many aren't educated enough to know as "real".

They get based on what they paid in through their work - same as your gramma.  Tell the Donald who pays no taxes in at all to leave the disabled who did pay taxes alone.