MOST of the people on SSI ARE NOT old people, blind, or even disabled.....
WHAT THEY ARE IS LAZY... grasshoppers shaking down the ants so to say..
I have: Heart disease, out-of-control hypertension and diabetes, p.a.d., edema, hearing loss, etc., etc. and have been turned down flat three times.
SSI is not SSDI, if you dont’ even know the difference what credibility could you possibly have?
I don’t know that your statement is correct. There are many disabled people, whose disabilities are not readily apparent. I walk with a cane, but my real disability is that my brain was oxygen deprived when my heart stopped. Now I have difficulty expressing coherent thoughts, trying to learn things and memory loss. I also can’t see well enough to do close work and my hearing is shot.. I used to be a legal secretary. I can’t do the job anymore and trying to learn anything else is just about impossible.
Early on, I had hopes of going back to work, but that’s impossible. I came from an environment where you received an education, found a job and worked for what you need. When I had to take disability, it was hard for me. I didn’t want to be a charity case. But it was pointed out to me that after having worked for 35 years, it wasn’t charity. I paid into the program and now that I needed the financial support, hell yeah, I’m entitled to it.
I understand the frustration with people receiving benefits who never paid in and who just want a check without working. Sadly though, thanks to the slackers and con artists, the truly disabled often receive no benefits. And all disabled people are treated like parasites.
SSI or SSDI are not entitlements they are welfare programs:
Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right. That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as contributions, as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of accrued property rights would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands. The Court went on to say, It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program nor entitlement program or whatever magic words policians want to use to bamboozle the voters. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security “benefits” are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.