Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What was it in 1950?Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.
SS was massively expended in 1950.
The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.You are not the sage. What were the number of seniors in poverty in 1950 and those in 1964?
Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%
Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.
If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.
The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.
There are two major facts about health care in the U S:
1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone
2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.
1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.
2) SO?
That's funny!
My wife and I are both retired and I'm 81 years old and you're explaining health care to me. We're both on Medicare and we spend about $5,000-$5,500 dollars each year for supplemental coverage, about $1,300 a year for medical prescription insurance and we have no dental or vision insurance. Just wait "old man." If you're lucky and last long enough you'll get to see what it's like.
Oh!.......I forgot. Each year Medicare will pay for a new pair of glasses if we need them. I had cataract surgery on both my eyes in 2014 and I can see as good as I could in my 30's. My wife's not so lucky. She's always had vision problems. She had cataract surgery when she was about 50 years old and struggles with her vision. She has essentially quit driving our cars. I'm her chauffeur. That's pretty bad when someone has a chauffeur who is 81 years old.
Someone needs to explain to you that no one owes you anything. You whine as if they do.
Well I'll try to clue you in on something. If I had put every penny into the stock market beginning in 1950 I'd be so goddam rich I'd stink. Social Security was never intended to make anyone rich....just buy their groceries and gas.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.What was it in 1950?How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.
SS was massively expended in 1950.
The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.
Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%
So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
The poor houses have a terrible history.
But they no longer exist.
My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.
SS was massively expended in 1950.
The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.
Fallacy of assertion without analysis.My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.
SS was massively expended in 1950.
The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.
guess what has happened to poverty in the working class since 1977 when the program started increasing payroll taxes. Record highs...
The poor houses have a terrible history.
But they no longer exist.
My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.
So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
senior poverty rate | Poverty & Policy
povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/senior...
Posts about seniorpovertyrate ... Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more ... The poverty rate for seniors .....
The poor houses have a terrible history.
But they no longer exist.
My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.
So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.What was it in 1950?SS was massively expended in 1950.
The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.
Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%
So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.
So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
You mean like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I may have missed something but in which branch did they serve?
You mean the rich person that paid the same percentage of their income as the poor person.
If someone contributes 5x as much as another person over their lifetime, should the person putting in 5x as much get 5x as much per month out when they draw? Wouldn't that be fair and equal? That's right. You bleeding hearts are only concerned about equal when it comes to those you support getting something.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.What was it in 1950?
Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%
So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
How many of them got far more out of it than they put in?
The numbers don't lie, and the fact you don't like it does not matter. Trot along.
You don't do stats well, do you? Then give us new figures. It will be higher than you to admit.senior poverty rate | Poverty & Policy
povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/senior...
Posts about seniorpovertyrate ... Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more ... The poverty rate for seniors .....
Read your stats next time. The data comes from US Census through Social Security. Both US Census and SSA puts a disclosure in its data that the figures overstate poverty in the elderly. I have written a longer piece. Andrew Bigg's piece that I cited
Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.
You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.
So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
You mean like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I may have missed something but in which branch did they serve?
You mean the rich person that paid the same percentage of their income as the poor person.
If someone contributes 5x as much as another person over their lifetime, should the person putting in 5x as much get 5x as much per month out when they draw? Wouldn't that be fair and equal? That's right. You bleeding hearts are only concerned about equal when it comes to those you support getting something.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.What was it in 1950?Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%
So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
How many of them got far more out of it than they put in?
That is your silly answer, not mine. Contradict the numbers. You can't. Thank you for admitting your were wrong. Joe is having the same trouble with numbers.You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.
So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
You mean like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I may have missed something but in which branch did they serve?
You mean the rich person that paid the same percentage of their income as the poor person.
If someone contributes 5x as much as another person over their lifetime, should the person putting in 5x as much get 5x as much per month out when they draw? Wouldn't that be fair and equal? That's right. You bleeding hearts are only concerned about equal when it comes to those you support getting something.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.What was it in 1950?
So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
How many of them got far more out of it than they put in?
So you can't answer. Didn't think so. I'll trot when you're man enough to enforce the demand.
That is your silly answer, not mine. Contradict the numbers. You can't. Thank you for admitting your were wrong. Joe is having the same trouble with numbers.So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.
No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.
You mean like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama? I may have missed something but in which branch did they serve?
You mean the rich person that paid the same percentage of their income as the poor person.
If someone contributes 5x as much as another person over their lifetime, should the person putting in 5x as much get 5x as much per month out when they draw? Wouldn't that be fair and equal? That's right. You bleeding hearts are only concerned about equal when it comes to those you support getting something.
The baseline is not 1964, but if we do use it then we can thank SS to some extent. I would think that at least twenty million seniors are lifted out of poverty by SS.So you ignore the other numbers. Interesting.
How many of them got far more out of it than they put in?
So you can't answer. Didn't think so. I'll trot when you're man enough to enforce the demand.
You don't do stats well, do you? Then give us new figures. It will be higher than you to admit.senior poverty rate | Poverty & Policy
povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/tag/senior...
Posts about seniorpovertyrate ... Social Security protected about 23.4 million seniors from poverty last year — more ... The poverty rate for seniors .....
Read your stats next time. The data comes from US Census through Social Security. Both US Census and SSA puts a disclosure in its data that the figures overstate poverty in the elderly. I have written a longer piece. Andrew Bigg's piece that I cited
It's your assertion. Go for it.
Con whines and Joe's numbers are not radically different than what I posted and Franco reinforced that only 1 out of 10 adults are in poverty, still not good enough, but much better overall in the last sixty years.
Con whines and Joe's numbers are not radically different than what I posted and Franco reinforced that only 1 out of 10 adults are in poverty, still not good enough, but much better overall in the last sixty years.
