• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

"Disabled". An over counted minority

MASSDRIVER

REGISTERED
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
1,532
Location
Esparto, CA
(CNSNews.com) - In the fourteen fiscal years that preceded President Barack Obama’s inauguration in 2009, the tax receipts coming into the federal government’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund exceeded the benefits paid out, and the trust fund ran a surplus.

In each of the five fiscal years Obama has served as president, the trust fund has run a deficit as the number of people receiving disability benefits has surged. The Disability Insurance Trust Fund has never before run five straight years of deficits.

In fiscal 2013, which ended on Sept. 30, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran a record deficit of $31.494 billion, according to newly released data from the Social Security Administration. That followed deficits of $8.462 billion in fiscal 2009, $20,831 billion in fiscal 2010, $25.264 billion in fiscal 2011, and $29.701 billion in fiscal 2012.

From fiscal 1995 through fiscal 2008, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund ran surpluses, as receipts from the disability insurance taxes paid by people who were working exceeded the value of the benefits paid to those claiming disability.

Congress created the federal disability insurance program by adding an amendment to the Social Security Act in 1956. The government paid the first disability benefits in fiscal 1957.

That year, the Social Security and disability programs were funded by payroll taxes that equaled a combined 5.625 percent of a person’s earnings. If someone was employed by someone else, this included a 2.0 percent tax for Social Security that was withheld from a person’s paycheck, an 0.250 percent tax for disability that was also withheld from the paycheck, a 3.0 percent tax for Social Security that was paid by the employer, and an 0.375 percent tax for disability that was paid by the employer.

A self-employed person paid the full 5.625 percent directly from his or her earnings.

Over the years, the payroll taxes for Social Security and disability have more than doubled to 12.4 percent. Self-employed individuals pay the entire 12.4 percent directly. People employed by someone else see 5.3 percent withheld from their paycheck for Social Security and 0.9 percent withheld for disability. Employers pay the other 6.2 percent on the worker’s behalf.

In 1957, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund took in $709 million and paid out only $59 million in benefits—or 8.3 percent of total revenues. A surplus of approximately $649 million was deposited in to the Trust Fund.

In reality, that means the government took that "surplus" and used it to pay for other government expenses, giving the Trust Fund an IOU to pay the money back later.

In the 57 fiscal years that the federal disability program has operated, it has run deficits in only 11 years---with five of those years coming under Obama. Prior to the last five fiscal years, the longest run of deficits in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund was the four-year span from fiscal 1962 trough fiscal 1965, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were president.

The trust fund also ran three straight years of deficits from fiscal 1975 through fiscal 1977, when Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were president.

When President Obama took office in January 2009--which was the fourth month of fiscal 2009--there were 7,442,377 workers on disability, according to the Social Security Administration. As of October 2013, there was a record 8,936,932. That means the number of people on disability has increased by 1,494,555 while Obama has been in office--a jump of 20 percent.

In addition to the 8,936,932 workers collecting disability in October, there were also 157,676 spouses of disabled workers who collected additional benefits, and 1,871,127 children of disabled workers who collected benefits.

All told, 10,965,735 people collected federal disability benefits in October.

At the end of fiscal 2008, there was a net balance of $216.239 billion in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—meaning the Treasury owed $216.239 billion in IOUs to the trust fund for surplus disability insurance tax receipts it had taken in previous years and used for other government expenses.

At the end of fiscal 2013, the net balance in the Disability Insurance Trust Fund had dropped to $100.486—a decline of $115.753 billion.

That $115.753 billion, the cumulative five year deficit of the disability insurance program, equals the amount of money the Treasury had to borrow from other sources to pay disability benefits during that time.

From the last day of January 2009 through the last day of September 2013, the total debt of the federal government climbed from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $16,738,183,526,697.32—an increase of $6,106,178,279,960.35.

That equaled approximately $53,091 in additional debt for each of the 115,013,000 households that the Census Bureau now estimates there are in the United States.

Since the last day of September, the federal government’s total debt has continued to increase, hitting $17,200,725,370,597.56 as of Tuesday—or approximately $149,555 per household.

Brent
 
All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance

And has nothing to do with this website
 
mark handler said:
All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance And has nothing to do with this website
This thread or this entire website?

Don't be threatened by information. It relates directly back to an earlier conversation.

Brent
 
All that means is that everyone that is disabled is not on public assistance
My mother in-law and bother in-law are both on disability and both receive public assistance in other forms of a government "entitlement"

[h=2]en·ti·tle·ment[/h] noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something

: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group

[h=2]1wel·fare[/h] noun \ˈwel-ˌfer\

: a government program for poor or unemployed people that helps pay for their food, housing, medical costs, etc.

Why don't we call it what it really is?

 
Misinterpreting Statistics

When dealing with statistics, numbers are often thrown around so fast that it is easy for a group or individual to manipulate how their statistics are viewed. Dr. Joe Schwarcz wrote an essay "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

You may want to read.

How many people are disabled has nothing to do with how many receive a government "entitlement"
 
RJJ, it's a counterpoint. Not proof, but evidence. There is a difference. It is evidence that by there a far less "disabled" than propoganda would have us believe.

I like to explore:

The merits of Ada

The validity of Ada

The need for excessive accessibility.

The industry of Ada.

The false discrimination of Ada.

To be explored philosophically, as a bad law, much the same as prohibition was bad law. One that was repealed.

Brent
 
Discrimination against one of one hundred is still discrimination.

And the ADA "civil rights law" will not be determined here
 
mark handler said:
Misinterpreting StatisticsWhen dealing with statistics, numbers are often thrown around so fast that it is easy for a group or individual to manipulate how their statistics are viewed. Dr. Joe Schwarcz wrote an essay "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

You may want to read.

How many people are disabled has nothing to do with how many receive a government "entitlement"
That is surprisingly shallow.

Those numbers can and will be used to further bloat the amount of our population that claim to need disabled access when they do not. A means for an industry and those that profit by the law to keep adding "improvements" so they can make more money through products, consultation, litigation, and construction.

Brent
 
MASSDRIVER said:
That is surprisingly shallow. Those numbers can and will be used to further bloat the amount of our population that claim to need disabled access when they do not. A means for an industry and those that profit by the law to keep adding "improvements" so they can make more money through products, consultation, litigation, and construction.

Brent
You calling me shallow.

Next you will be quoting information from George Lincoln Rockwell
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"excessive accessibility" hahaha that's ridiculous..............you really need to spend your time and energy towards more altruistic thoughts and actions.
 
My detractors are so apparently void of intellect that no debate can be had.

So instead of discourse there are personal jabs, the true indication that the loser has not a thought to offer.

JPohling, my altruism is personal and genuine. I am a helper of time and material. I also make sure to allocate enough time in my day to spend towards these posts, as well as other thoughts and actions. But thanks for your concern. As Mark likes to haughtily shout down from the gleaming white tower, "You know nothing about me. You have no clue". Well, should you learn more about me, you would be impressed with my pursuits of generosity.

You would buy me multiple beers.

Speaking of Marky Mark, and his lack of reading comprehension, I said I was "surprised" at how shallow , not that you ARE shallow. I have come to expect a better effort. Please work on that.

But back to the point, I posted the above not for statistical masturbation, but to illustrate what I would consider false pretenses for disability considerations, namely the overstatement of how many disabled there actually are in this country. That again points to the disparity of money and energy devoted to a very small group of people.

As for the notion that excessive accessibility is ridiculous, let me ask this: Can we say we are done now? No more regulations and reams of paper inhabited only by little elvish consultants and litigators? I think there are excesses, such as yellow dot mats (absurdity) and chirping walk/don't walk indicators. Especially the latter, always placed in shopping areas and high pedestrian concentration (so you know WE care) but never where blind people actually are. As with any government program, the ADA regulatory gnomes will seek survival by continuing "improvement" of the ever growing catalog.

Which directly relates to the artificial discrimination issue. A discrimination determined at regular intervals by unelected bureaucrats. That it is manufactured is inarguable.

As I asked before, whom amongst the true believers of the religion Of ADA are willing to end discrimination by building full accessibility into their own homes? None is the answer, as the only responses were intellectually weak, if at all. Mainly I heard crickets.

So yes, I will keep posting looking for dialog. But apparently it's not worthy of discourse amongst the bureaucratic throng, who only accept "that it is". Right or wrong.

Really kind of sad.

Brent
 
Non sequitur (logic); I could use those same statistic to show that contributions to DI trust fund went down for whatever reason; low employment, fraud, military operations or natural catastrophes; and therefore mandatory spending created the deficit.

How not to debate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In my opinion it would benefit to link the where the earlier conversation took place (#3 post) to show relevance.
 
Brent,

Are you trying to say that the federal government makes spending decisions with a rediculously low return on investment? Without any consideration for the taxpayer? NO WAY!
 
Francis Vineyard said:
Non sequitur (logic); I could use those same statistic to show that contributions to DI trust fund went down for whatever reason; low employment, fraud, military operations or natural catastrophes; and therefore mandatory spending created the deficit.How not to debate; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

In my opinion it would benefit to link the where the earlier conversation took place (#3 post) to show relevance.
I agree. Laziness took hold early last night.

Brent
 
artificial discrimination.................. hahaha there is another zinger! So your basis on judging others commitment to this is if they would, or have, modified their homes to provide full accessibility? That makes no sense at all. If the ADA was being forced on individual homes then I could understand your concern. It is a law meant to improve accessibility for the disabled as they try to live their lives just like you and I. If you feel they are not worthy of this then no discourse is going to enlighten you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two different definitions of disability being used here--The partially disabled that need barriers removed but can still work as addressed by the ADA, and those on SS Disablity that are "totally and permanently" disabled and therefore get larger Social Security checks early. The latter is often being used by the states that pay unemployment and other need based assisstance that are state funded to get the long term unemployed off state funded assistance and onto Federal funded maintenance. Some states even hire consultants to go over the welfare rolls to see who might be transferred to SS disability.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/in-response-to-just-how-distorted-is-u.html

This also greatly reduces the unemployment rate.
 
Jp, let me ask; how can you discriminate by location?

True discrimination means across the board, anywhere you are at. Ada actually allows discrimination in certain instances.

Can you give me an instance where it is acceptable to discriminate against blacks?

Honest question brother. Enlighten me.

Brent
 
The idea is to improve access where it will provide the most benefit. Providing fully accessible residences where many will never see a wheeler is not very beneficial. I never have a clue where your trying to go with these posts. I dunno? tanning competitions?
 
Brent....You are allowed to dicriminate at your home...or any other "private" setting....But when you welcome the public in, it is ALL of the public you need to accomodate.....Do I agree with it 100%? Not necessarily because I do not know it 100%....But I do believe in the intent....

And it is OK to discriminate against blacks at a Klan rally wether they are disabled or not...(not any kind of endorsement)...it's a private club.....
 
Do you believe houses built in the past discriminate against blacks?

Do you believe houses built now discriminate against blacks?

Do you believe houses built in the past, or built now discriminate against the disabled?

Brent
 
Back
Top