General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSocial Security Threatens To Close All Field Offices
http://labornotes.org/2014/05/social-security-threatens-close-all-field-officesBut that will change if the Social Security Administration’s “Vision 2025” comes to pass. Bureaucrats are mulling closure of most of SSA’s more than 1,000 community field offices in the U.S., where 43 million people sought services last year. Even as the number of visitors continues to grow, Vision 2025 would virtually eliminate face-to-face service, replacing it with Internet services and an 800 phone number.
Thirty thousand field office employees would be laid off—following nearly 11,000 positions already eliminated. When SSA sought its employees’ input for Vision 2025, they responded overwhelmingly that field offices were vital to the agency’s mission. “Americans are going to be cheated out of what they deserve,” said Witold Skwierczynski, head of the workers’ union bargaining council. “Every Social Security beneficiary deserves the personal assistance they have paid for their entire lives.”
...
Skwierczynski noted that, according to surveys of SSA employees, many claimants who file on the internet make decisions that could lead to the permanent loss of benefits. SSA employees are trained to catch those mistakes. Ryan Gurganious, a claims rep for the disabled in North Carolina, cited an example: “When a disabled person is working, we’ll ask them, ‘In your job do you have any special expenses you have to pay to be able to work?’ They might say, ‘I have to get the county transportation service to come pick me up in my wheelchair, and that’s a $40 fee every month.’ “We know that that $40 comes out of the equation when we’re figuring their benefit, so they’ll get a larger SSI check. But the computer’s not going to ask them that.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
newfie11
(8,159 posts)This is right up there in stupidity as privatizing the post office.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)They have my projections for 2032, 2036, and 2039 all ready to go with each year of earnings and Social Security deductions. I just looked at it a month ago when I found out that they had stopped the annual flyer they used to send. I hear they may start those up again, but I like the idea of having the information on the website.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And believe me, the website cannot BEGIN to handle explaining the complex choices faced re decisions on when and how to collect. See Post 11.
Will SS provide free laptops & training to all those elderly without computers/access to the website?
valerief
(53,235 posts)When they do away with Social Security..no need for offices.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)unless you have a key access code that gets you into the inner circle.
Like comcast, exxon, and other companies have.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)should for the most part only be in their district all the time rather than DC. voting and bills be done on the internet with citizen participation on writing them and even passing them.
trof
(54,256 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Government could be devolved to extent that it is in district form - mini town/city halls. At least we might get a say in what goes on. How many people actually know what bill gets proposed and voted on? Unless you watch CSPAN (the minority).
The thugs in charge of the House of Representatives are like mini dictators
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... if you have not received your benefit check
Press 2 to file a change of address
Press 3 to send a vote of confidence to your congressperson that never saw a weapons system they didn't like but are really frosted that you are getting back the money you paid in all your life
deafskeptic
(463 posts)As for the TDD line for the deaf, Government doesn't seem to have gotten the memo that TTYs/TDDs are obsolete. I don't know any deaf who has used one in the last 15 years.
Well at least, Government is much more professional about taking text relay and video relay than many companies that I've death with in the past. However, using relay of either type when you have to dial 1 for x, dial 2 for y and dial 3 for z is very cumbersome. 
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Lobbyists have carte blanche to anything and everything in Congress on behalf of billionaires.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)"press 1 to speak with a person....in about an hour".....
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)"Your call is very important to us, please remain on the line and sometime this century someone will help you."
"And if you are tired of waiting, try our website www.thelinkisbroken.com."
bemildred
(90,061 posts)
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)
pinto
(106,886 posts)don't have a family member or other support person with a good familiarity of SSA guidelines, what data to collect, etc.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The last people to face that question were born in 1937. They would be well past retirement age. Full retirement age ranges ratchets upwards to 67 for people born 1960 and later.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And people like you spreading this type of misinformation is EXACTLY the reason why face-to-face interaction at local social secuity offices is vital so claimants are not screwed out of benefits they have earned over their lifetimes.
You can start your Social Security retirement benefits as early as age 62, but the benefit amount you receive will be less than your full retirement benefit amount.
If you start your benefits early, they will be reduced based on the number of months you receive benefits before you reach your full retirement age. If your:
full retirement age is 66, the reduction of your benefits at age 62 is 25 percent; at age 63, it is about 20 percent; at age 64, it is about 13.3 percent; and at age 65, it is about 6.7 percent.
full retirement age is older than 66 (that is, you were born after 1954), you can still start your retirement benefits at 62 but the reduction in your benefit amount will be greater, up to a maximum of 30 percent at age 62 for people born in 1960 and later.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/applying2.htm
One of the most complex issues is determining what would maximize your payouts -whether to claim benefits at age 62 through your spouse, ex-spouse, deceased spouse, or deceased ex-spouse, or on your own earnings record. You can take early retirement at 62 on your spouse's earnings records, and then when you reach your own full retirement age, switch to collecting on your own earnings record. Or the opposite, claim on your own record at 62 and switch to your spouse's later. The excellent staffs at the SS field office can provide you with all the necessary information in a half hour appointment. You can then take time to think about it and call back with your decision. If you decide right then, the staff take it from there and your payments or adjusted payments will kick in within a month.
If you were married for the requisite number of years to qualify to make a spousal claim, got divorced, remarried for the requisite number of years to spouse number 2, and then were widowed or got a second divorce, you have a choice to claim on your own earnings records OR the records of EITHER the first or second spouse. You have to have certified copies of marriage, divorce and death records for SS to access spouse's earnings records on your behalf. This procedure can be mind-boggling for many people but especially to poorly educated, unsophisticated claimants Try straightening all this out with a computer, or with an 800 number outsourced to India.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)For people born in 1937 and before, you could retire at 62 with partial benefits or 65 with full benefits. For current retirees, the choice is 62 with partial benefits or a later age, ranging up to 67, for full benefits. So if you actually bother to read what I said, which you didn't, I was saying that the option to retire at 65 with full benefits is long gone. I.E. that boat has sailed. The current crop of retirees have full benefits at 66 years of age.
My point being, the article is sloppy writing and has "facts" that haven't been true for over a decade. Your snarky reply says something about you, not me. Your comment "And people like you spreading this type of misinformation" is bullshit, because I was exactly right. You chose to not read what I had written and fired of an assholish response. My suggestion, go have a snack and take a nap, you might feel better afterwards and not be such jerk to the people around you.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)What it really means, is that's the age (currently 66, will go up to 67 as already noted) at which if you are collecting SS, it will not be decreased if you earn too much money. At any age, SS may be subject to income taxes.
The true "full benefits" age is actually 70, because that's the age at which you max out on how much SS you will collect, no matter when you were born, whether or not you keep on working. What that means is that no one should delay getting SS after age 70.
The decision about what age to start collecting is always somewhat complex, and for each individual depends on how much the need that income, and how long they realistically expect to live. If you expect a decent life span you should delay collecting as long as possible. If for any reason you don't, then start collecting earlier.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)and live to 85, I'll earn exactly the same X amount of dollars.
I'll take it at 66.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)is over $700/month. I won't be able to afford to pass that up.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)most people will collect the same amount of money, given the average life expectancy.
If you think you'll live longer, delay taking social security. But only if you can afford to delay. For me, the difference between age 66 and age 70 is about $500, except that amount will undoubtedly increase because of COLAs. I'm in a place where I can delay taking SS, so I will.
In any case, understanding that for those who continue to work the "full benefits" is not the maximum amount they might get, but the age at which there is no penalty for continuing to work, is important.
llmart
(15,536 posts)If you don't need the Social Security benefits at 66, why not take it anyway and invest it? You need to factor that in to the equation too.
You may expect to live to 85 and end up living to only 75. That's always the great unknown.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)And I've given some thought to that.
Probably, I've you pointed out, the great unknown is how long any particular person will live. I happen to have excellent health, come from reasonably long-lived stock, and I actually have plans to see a total eclipse of the sun that occurs a week before my 97th birthday.
Yesterday in conversation with friends my age and older, the topic of how long we might live came up. One has a mother who is now 99. the mom always said she'd live to be 100. The dad died at 65, and the daughter who was telling us this said his goal had always been to see all of his children graduate high school. The youngest did so right before he turned 65. We agreed that if you set some sort of goal like that, once you get close you ought to find another goal.
Certainly we can't merely will ourselves to live to a certain age, but often there's a connection between expectation and life span.
One of these days I need to work out the exact math to figure out how just when to collect SS.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)He said the same thing you did.
Yes, you can retire at 62.
But you don't get your full benefits at 62.
He was right, and it didn't take a whole shitload of paragraphs for him to convey that message.
RKP5637
(67,102 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Although needs are expanding as baby boomers retire, SSA isn’t waiting for 2025. Management has already shuttered 80 field offices and reduced hours at the rest by closing at noon on Wednesdays and at 3:00 on other weekdays.
AFGE encourages union members and all who expect to receive Social Security—that is, just about everyone—to push back against Vision 2025. The afge.org/saveoursocialsecurity site includes ways to ask your lawmaker to cosponsor H.R. 3997. Site visitors can send a letter to the editor and find tools to educate their communities.
- See more at: http://labornotes.org/2014/05/social-security-threatens-close-all-field-offices#sthash.q9xsxBTz.dpuf
Re-Open Closed Offices
Director Alex Lawson says, “The public takes a Social Security office closing very badly. It always makes the local news. We want to make sure all the service cuts and office closings together make the national news.”
He points out that Social Security is under threat from many directions. Only after loud objections from the public did President Obama abandon his drive for an inferior cost-of-living formula. The office closures, service cuts, George W. Bush’s try at outright privatization—all, he says, are “part of the same Wall Street-led attack on Social Security.”
Reducing services erodes confidence in Social Security overall, he said, so the office closures threaten the future of the entire program.
Lawson pointed out that
- See more at: http://labornotes.org/2014/05/social-security-threatens-close-all-field-offices#sthash.q9xsxBTz.dpuf
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)You and I are on the same page.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Sat May 24, 2014, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)
Why did she collect $400,000 in speaking fees from Goldman-Sachs? First gutting and then privatizing SS would be a lovely quid-pro-quo for Big Banking.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Rhymes With Orange
(40 posts)He probably wasn't even brought into the loop on this decision.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Not to mention Obama's repeatedly announcing, for years, that everything to do with social security is on the bargaining table. For you to claim he's not in the loop on this is the equivalent of saying he's an empty suit sitting in the Oval Office. And fans and critics alike know that's not true. Obama is no W with a puppetmaster like Dick Cheney pulling his strings.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12672-drums-beating-to-privatize-social-security
Wall Street has been drooling for years at the thought of getting its hands on the Social Security Trust Fund. With all the moneys financial institutions have put into Obama's campaign funds, weakening and then privatizing Social Security is the Biggest Payoff Obama (and corporate bank buddy, $200,000 per speech, Sachs-Clinton, should she make it to the oval office) could ever give them. In other words, this is the ultimate payoff for the Big Banks, and there is no way on this so-far-still-green earth that Obama is not in the loop on this issue.
Here's how it works:
Social Security is an exceptionally well-run program with incredibly low administrative costs that has gotten people, you know, a healthy retirement. And it's changed old age in America from about 50 percent of the time being in poverty to a life that you can lead with some degree of dignity. But Wall Street's idea is, instead of the money coming from the government, let's take all, or at least a big chunk of it, and put it in the equivalent of individual retirement accounts, IRAs, through Wall Street. And, of course, this would be trillions of dollars of investment, and every year they would get scores of billions of dollars in fees off of it. So this is the unholy grail of Wall Street.http://truth-out.org/news/item/12672-drums-beating-to-privatize-social-security
Rhymes With Orange
(40 posts)I just think there's a lot on his radar and some bureaucrat thought this was a good idea. I don't think President Obama gave the order.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And threats to Social Security have long been considered the third rail of US politics.
Neither the recently enacted nor the proposed changes were enacted by "some bureaucrat".
If, by "bureaucrat" you are referring to a non-politically appointed high GS level in SSA, that makes absolutely no sense. Unless said anonymous "bureaucrat" has a professional death wish, i.e., destroying the efficacy of one's own agency.
As the articles cited in this thread document, the numbers of retirees and pre-retirees coming in for personal meetings has skyrocketed. "43 million people sought services last year. Even as the number of visitors continues to grow, Vision 2025 would virtually eliminate face-to-face service, replacing it with Internet services and an 800 phone number.
Thirty thousand field office employees would be laid off—following nearly 11,000 positions already eliminated. When SSA sought its employees’ input for Vision 2025, they responded overwhelmingly that field offices were vital to the agency’s mission. “Americans are going to be cheated out of what they deserve,” said Witold Skwierczynski, head of the workers’ union bargaining council. “Every Social Security beneficiary deserves the personal assistance they have paid for their entire lives.”
I don't want to be patronizing or condescending, but having worked for a decade as a government attorney, I know for a fact that such a massive slashing of a government agency is not done at the whim of "some bureaucrat" who "thought this was a good idea."
I take it you agree with the posters on this thread who have detailed all the ways in which these cuts affecting life sustaining income for millions of Americans are offensive and unacceptable - you just can't deal with the fact that someone you apparently admire would ever approve such heinous actions.
Rhymes With Orange
(40 posts)I'll go back to the research closet and get caught up. Sometimes I have blinders on when it comes to President Obama. Thanks for your comments.
TBF
(32,041 posts)read his first state of the union speech where he makes a comment about needing to "have a conversation about social security". The neolibs are dying to privatize this program. If Obama doesn't manage to accomplish it Hillary most certainly will.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Nope, the buck doesnt stop with him. Naive, is what comes to mind.
CrispyQ
(36,446 posts)~kick
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)in fact it is not from the executive branch of government. You can thank Congress for the report.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)I would think that you would cheer the pointing out of false attacks on the Social Security Administration.
Way to change subject and make it personal, rent a wreck.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)We know Republicans and Third Way Democrats have been working hard to cut our benefits. I'm sure the backlash was so strong, they've come up with this more insidious way of making SS less popular, hence less public support. I really do hate these motherfuckers.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
bonniebgood
(940 posts)the poor one seeking help will never get to log on. Results "Denied". I have always heard
the saying "there is more than one way to skin a cat".
Same BS reason congress demanded the Post Office prefund retirement benefits for 75 years within 10 year window. They've taken 15 BILLION
from the post office in the past 8 years. then close many local Post Offices and lay off workers. Post Office retirees will never see a 3rd of this money. Congress will make new designation laws where those BILLIONS will go.
All Government that benefit the PEOPLE MUST go.
Department of ED
Social Security ADMIN
Dept of LABor
Dept of Energy
Environment
US Postal Service
It's time to crack down on Treasonous voters (and the TWo Party System) who keeps voting for the DESTRUCTION of America.
erronis
(15,222 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)do it without causing too much commotion.
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts)take care of our veterans and we will not take care of our seniors. What a lovely christian nation.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)I worked for government then and most Federal workers were excited about their jobs because it made them feel good about being able to help their "customers" better, especially employees who worked for the SSA and other organizations that dealt directly with subsidizing people. FEMA, SSA,DOA etc. Employee morale was up and so were good services. More SSA offices were opened around the country and placed inside or along side frequented commercial buildings and in rural areas. Now the GOP anti-people in Congress want to change all that and the losers will be the most vulnerable public among us. We need to elect a Congress and a President who will not let that happen. Many of my Federal colleagues who worked then have since retired and have been replaced by the ol'e boy network and their families, especially in the south and mid-west as those places have become redder and redder. The results are what you see now. FEMA is more protected because it actually deals with helping more well-off GOPers who own property and live in blood red belts across the nation. But SSA and other social service agencies are going to continue to suffer if the GOP gets control. WAKE UP PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Yeah, 'cause that's worked out so well in the past. 
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Hello! My name is Sanjay in Mumbai - - -oh, I mean "Rick" in Phoenix.
Rhymes With Orange
(40 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)why not have people who can barely speak the language try to answer questions? What could possibly go wrong?
csziggy
(34,135 posts)After my Dad died, Mom and my sister tried to take care of needed details with Social Security by calling that number. They had to leave a message. Supposedly someone was to return their call in order to make an appointment for a Social Security person to call back. 
The problem was, there was no indication of when the first call back would come. With all the business that had to be taken care of and with various medical appointments, they kept missing the call back. - which was only done once. If you miss that call, you have to call again to ask for them to call you again at some unspecified time.
The last time I talked with my sister about it, the time limit for applying for Dad's death benefits had almost expired while trying to get a call appointment from SS. They'd messed up Mom's SS payments while stopping Dad's. I'm not sure any of it every got straightened out.
It is a completely insane system. Why can't they set up appointments on the first call? Oh, and if you wanted to go into the local office, it was usually a three hour wait AFTER the time of the appointment - IF you could get an appointment set up.
For my 92 year mother it was not at all feasible to try to go in person, she simply does not have the endurance for that kind of wait. For her to take care of things on the phone is hard, her hearing is not great and she is easily confused. She will not put her personal information on the internet, probably a good thing since she is not very good at knowing what to not click on. My sister tries to do what she can, but she cannot sit around waiting for a call that could come at any time on any day.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)We've got your social security coveted
malthaussen
(17,184 posts)Works for me. But couldn't we start with Congress?
-- Mal
antigop
(12,778 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)I had to phone early this year. The call center is in India. The agent I dealt with was very rude to me, and would not answer my simple question. Then she hung up on me!!! She hung up on me.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sat May 24, 2014, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't want to risk any protests or unpleasant scenes at offices people can actually visit.
I'm sure that, ultimately, they anticipate not needing those offices at all.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)who is disabled to the local SS office as well as our local family services for EBT renewal...
its appalling whats going on..
I guess they decided since they couldnt take food out of peoples mouths, theyd go for the people who do the signing up of the food and services...
1 worker at our social security office. 10 people waiting when I get there. this is a town of around 9,000(give or take)..
get to the EBT office... 1 worker, ZERO AFTER 2PM... just the receptionist til close.
Sad. They are going to find a way to kill the safety net one way or another .. even if they hafta kill everyone and themselves to do it 
Divernan
(15,480 posts)That office doubtless serves several counties. All the offices should be open on Saturdays so people assisting others (as you kindly did) don't have to take off work.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Ryan Gurganious, a claims rep for the disabled in North Carolina, cited an example: “When a disabled person is working, we’ll ask them, ‘In your job do you have any special expenses you have to pay to be able to work?’ They might say, ‘I have to get the county transportation service to come pick me up in my wheelchair, and that’s a $40 fee every month.’
“We know that that $40 comes out of the equation when we’re figuring their benefit, so they’ll get a larger SSI check. But the computer’s not going to ask them that.”
Labor Notes staffer Jenny Brown cites a personal example. Her father was originally told he was just shy of the required work credits to get Social Security benefits. He’d worked for many years for a state college that wasn’t part of the system at the time.
But an alert field office worker realized that he was also a World War II combat veteran—and a special rule for those vets put him over the limit so he qualified for a monthly check.
David Sheagley, an AFGE representative and SSA teleservice-center representative in Cleveland, notes that SSA workers “assist folks during stress-filled transitions whether it be death, disability, or retirement. In other words, our mission at SSA absolutely requires that human beings be available to talk with the public.”
- See more at: http://labornotes.org/2014/05/social-security-threatens-close-all-field-offices#sthash.q5QFA6JJ.dpuf
Divernan
(15,480 posts)With Obama in charge for the last 6 years, SSA is a combination of FUBAR and Chinese fire drill and getting worse.
Another aspect of SSA’s long-range plan is that those who use the MySSA site run risks. The New York Times reported that Experian, the private credit-data company that manages a portion of MySSA user data, was hacked by a Vietnamese criminal ring. Though SSA data were spared that time, 200 million accounts were compromised.
H.R. 3997, backed by AFGE, would put a moratorium on field office closures until SSA provides justification. The bill also requires that the community be allowed to weigh in on potential closures. The bill faces an uphill battle reach the U.S. House of Representatives, though. As of May 9, it had only 15 cosponsors.
- See more at: http://labornotes.org/2014/05/social-security-threatens-close-all-field-offices#sthash.jHdEEXFM.dpuf
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They very likely hope there is no social security to administer by 2025. There is no profit in social security.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)BLACK: So Social Security is an exceptionally well-run program with incredibly low administrative costs that has gotten people, you know, a healthy retirement. And it's changed old age in America from about 50 percent of the time being in poverty to a life that you can lead with some degree of dignity.But Wall Street's idea is, instead of the money coming from the government, let's take all, or at least a big chunk of it, and put it in the equivalent of individual retirement accounts, IRAs, through Wall Street. And, of course, this would be trillions of dollars of investment, and every year they would get scores of billions of dollars in fees off of it. So this is the unholy grail of Wall Street.
JAY: And then, of course, if the market—I shouldn't say if—when the market takes another enormous nosedive again, people then lose even more of their retirement income. They would, except, of course, that you couldn't have an institution that had large numbers of these retirement accounts fail, because politically it would be devastating. You can imagine if 3 million people suddenly lost all of their retirement savings and there was no Social Security backup, and they'd be reduced to literally eating cat food again, like the old days. America would go berserk.And so that's another part of the dream of the big banks. They realize that if they get many of these accounts, they would be so far beyond too big to fail that you can't imagine it. You know, no one will even dare criticize them.
JAY: But people are going to be investing money in mutual funds and stocks and such. So if there's a nosedive, not a crash of the financial institution, but a nosedive in the value of the stocks, there's a nosedive in the value of their retirement savings.
BLACK: Oh, yes, and catastrophic. You would have no safety net left as a result of this, or a grossly inadequate safety net left. And to give people a real-world example, today, 22, almost 23 years after the Japanese twin bubbles in real estate and the stock market popped, the NIKKEI, which is their equivalent of the Dow Jones, is roughly 25 percent of peak value. And that's ignoring inflation. Right? In other words, it's like the Dow Jones lost three-quarters of its value and stayed that way for over 22 years. You can imagine what a catastrophe it would be for anybody, where we had privatized Social Security in a system like that. So this idea is obscene on multiple levels, but is the greatest thing, and it's going to make them hundreds of billions of dollars in fees.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Obama and company (Big Banking) were up to. He couldn't get by with a frontal attack on Social Security, so he's gutting it bit-by-bit, step-by-step, until it is so dysfunctional he (or the Annointed One/Clinton-Sachs) can sell the public on privatizing it.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)lululu
(301 posts)ignorant incompetents from third world countries and the wait times will be two hours or more.
CrispyQ
(36,446 posts)I can hardly keep up. 
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Iwillnevergiveup
(9,298 posts)"Betrayal" is exactly the right word.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)did them.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)
BlueJac
(7,838 posts)we would save Social Security and get rid of dead beat congressman! Plus save tons on their health care and their retirements. They are ruthless blood suckers without a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)or their time raising money for elections, I really doubt they're much more informed on the issues than the rest of us working scrubs. Perhaps will fill our congress with workers and homeless and real people who vote for the interest of real people. People who with they work and see in their communities. Professional politicians might be the problem. If they can sit back and eliminate 11,000 positions, if they had the courage of their convictions, work to constitutionally eliminate their own useless existences.
My apathy is killing me.
Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)it is not the Social Security Administration Vision.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts) rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)happen on his watch, but he accepts no responsibility. There is a sign on the pres desk, "The Buck Stops with Congress."
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)
doc03
(35,324 posts)don't have computers or know how to use one. I think it is a bad idea.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Feel free to steal this--
WHEREAS the Social Security Administration (SSA) published its ‘Vision 2025” on March 10, 2014 advocating making online self-service deliver its primary service channel, eliminating direct service to clients except in very limited circumstances, farming out much of its workload to outside agencies and eliminating traditional centralized offices; and
WHEREAS outside organizations would be allowed to charge for services which workers have already paid for with their FICA taxes; and
WHEREAS SSA field offices server a record 43 million visitors in 2013, and call volume to the 800 number created unprecedented delays in contacting an agent; and
WHEREAS, given that SSA field office employees get 17 weeks of training and only become fully proficient in 3 to 4 years, it is patently unrealistic to expect anyone without such training to be able to navigate the system in just a few minutes online; and
WHEREAS requiring online enrollment essentially strips people for whom English is not a first language, people who do not have and do not know how to use computers, and people with disabilities such as early onset Alzheimer’s of benefits they have worked for all their lives; and
WHEREAS “Vision 2025” would force most workers, their families and their survivors to fend for themselves;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 34th Legislative Democrats urge our federal lawmakers to decisively reject “Vision 2025” and instead to mandate increased funding for SSA field workers and traditional full service field offices; and
THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the 34th Legislative Democrats send copies of this resolution to our senators and to our Democratic congressional delegation.
Submitted to the 34th Legislative District Democrats meeting of June 9, 2014
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Last edited Sun May 25, 2014, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
being put on hold for most of a day.
madville
(7,408 posts)I can't imagine if the only way to interact with a human there would be by phone. Eventually they will probably have live web chat outsourced to India, that would be fun!
madville
(7,408 posts)2016 is when the SSDI trust fund is depleted. There are three options when that happens: increase revenue, reduce benefits, or start drawing from the larger OASDI trust fund to cover obligations. If they choose the latter, draw from the OASDI trust fund (which current law allows for) all the trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2026-2027. At that time (only 12-13 years away) it is estimated benefits will need to be reduced to 75% of current levels in order for contributions to cover payouts.
I think the first thing they should do is figure out how to raise the income cap or eliminate it completely, 12.4% of your income gets paid in with no cap, no exceptions.