Speakeasy forum: Remember that 47% nonsense? The suggestion that 47% of all

indeed, states have a hard time handling them, in part because as has been pointed out, most states are required not to run a deficet. No state is going to have to political will to put aside enough emergency money to handle a storm like Sandy. Any politician who tried would lose the next election.

Local individuals, organizations, cities and counties are not going to have the capability to repair roads, power grids, drainage systems, transportation systems etc.

Regarding the accusation that union electricians insulted and refused to allow an crew in, I saw the story and I'm not disputing the guys who were treated such. However, I alsosaw several other non-union crews that said they had no problems and were welcomed. Sadly there are such people and not just in unions.

Yes the bigger the government the more inefficient it is and the more bureaucacy interferes with results. As you yourself point out though, this has happened under different presidents, different parties, time and time again.

Local people can do more right now help, for sure. But they can't even begin to rebuild all the damage from a storm like Sandy or Katrina. Surely you're not in favor of doing away with federal FEMA aid and federal money to help in such natural disasters? Reform them would be great, but sadly I don't see government or politicians with the will to make things better. Even more sadly, if you did away with most of the beauracracy, scammers would make off with even more of the money.

You think all the fake handymen that show up, promise to fix a house, get money for supplies and disappear are union?

It's downright disgusting how humans prey on the weak and vulnerable. This isn't political, it's rats on two legs.

Now as far as local churches, associations, and individuals helping others I think it's great. But do you think it can replace medicaid, medicare, and fixed social security payments? Afterall, that was the situation under discussion, replacing current programs with some type of self responsible savings. It was in reference to a quite vocal view in the last few years furor that government shouldn't be in the social business at all, that individuals should be self reliant and damn it if they won't, or can't.

Individuals and small organizations are great in helping out in disasters, less so in a long term care role. Not that some won't try, but people sadly have trouble maintaining their committment. Not only that, employers are understanding about time off for personal problems or to help others after a disaster, less so day to day. With the business first attitude today, too much time off to help others and you'll be the one needing help.

Only a few in most local areas have the financial wherewithal to provide the money needed and they're not going to support a community of retirees and disabled on their own dime for decades.

Elderly use to live with their kids for old age care, with the rest of the kids helping out. Today families are scattered to hell and back. Afterall, they have to live where they can work do they not? Even more problematic is that we no longer have half a dozen to a dozen kids to work the farm and take care of us in our old age. No everyone has a farm to live on or off of. How many gardens where Sandy hit?

Many have no kids, where do they go when if they need a little help day to day. Many today can hardly afford to support their kids, much less their kids, their parents, and all too often their grandkids.

Indeed, how often do we criticise those that have large families and can't support them?

So if we as a society want to leave it up to individuals, families, and locals to handle the problem, then we have to be honest enough to say so, and not blind ourselves to what will happen to many of the disabled and elderly. If we don't want to help as a society, that's the way it is, but don't self deluded ourselves that someone else will always take care of the problems.

We can't be Anybody, nobody, somebody, and everybody

cant be improved.

bigger means poorer in efficiency in government there is no doubt.

Even when you start with a streamline operation, every problem a rule is added, then admendments to each rule, and amendments to the amendents, and exceptions. And at least half of that is reaction to a misuse of some type. Regulations in part, perhaps in large part, become bulkier because people will take every advantage they can.

FEMA certainly needs revamping, and I'd agree about some kind of arrangement where upfront money isn't needed. If the damage is eligible under FEMA then some arrangement should be available to get the work started.

Even with private homeowners insurance you don't always get the money immediately. You get approval based on the damage inspection and your contractor's estimate. And if there is a lien/loan on the home, the check is joint with the financier. The financier often won't release the funds until the work is done and verified done. This is to be sure the homeowner doesn't take the money and not repair the damage, thus depreciating the value of the lender's security.

Many local contractors will work without advance payment fortunately. However, even the honest contractors in the horde that descends on a disaster area from distance locals often won't.

The average lifespan of a male adult in 1977 was around age 68......figuring in that he would have worked up until retirement age of between 62-65, they calculated what he would have earned over that lifetime in the position that he held at the time of his death, factoring in wage increases throughout that time, and that percentage is what they paid out for each child. It wasn't a total that was then divided by three....it was a total percentage given to each child.

I don't know when it might have changed, but the same calculations were made for Derek in 1989 when his father died, so it had to have changed after that date...........perhaps during the Clinton years when many reforms were put into place in his second term?

Even when I tell you that it has happened to me on a personal level........and you ask me often how something affects me personally.

Oh well.........and I'm not hunting down 40 year old rulings for you.

I'm just making a point about how and why social security is always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy..........it isn't necessarily the seniors and how many of those are collecting finally.......it's because of the children and the outrageous amounts that were and still are being paid out for them when it shouldn't be that way....and that the system needs to be reformed.

I have discussed this with my family, and they agree with me. My daughter continues to cash her check for Tommy every month because it is available and it allows her to continue to be his caregiver without having to hire someone else to be......but she does agree that the system needs to be changed/reformed but that check is a disability check based on Tommy's father's CURRENT earnings and isn't calculated on future earnings. Yes, the checks I received were cashed because I didn't understand how the system SHOULD be working but I did suggest to my social security worker that I feared that more abusive husbands would turn up dead if more women with kids realized how well off they could be with that creep out of the way.....YOU didn't enlighten me, you arrogant idiot.....I enlightened myself as I became older and wiser and got more involved in political topics.

is you are the lonely one who has nothing but time on his hands to dream up ways to antagonize, insult, and pry into other people's personal lives in order to play 'gotcha'......and that you're an a$$.

You ask, on a regular basis, how the USA political decision affect me personally, and when I actually take the time to reply, you revert back to your same old insulting self. You really don't care what the answer might be, you are only interested in finding another way to insult me. Screw you.

because I've been pretty hard on you personally. I see no reason for JP to accept it however. He's been far better mannered than I have, try to remember we're not the same person.

And it surprises me that you spend as much typing out Tea Party manifestoes and Right Wing Talking Points to torment the rest of us. Me, I've got too much to do to spare that much time.

Rob

you arrogant idiot.

you're an a$$.

Screw you.

The term I use is Screw you, Duck Face.

More stuff you say that contradicts yourself.

I also don't think that survivor's benefits should be determined by what the dead father/mother would have earned in their lifetime

that check is a disability check based on Tommy's father's CURRENT earnings and isn't calculated on future earnings.

You don't think what a person "would have earned" should be used, in a later statement you claim it isn't used, and you know it hasn't been used, BEFORE you made ANY posts in this thread.

Complain about something that you know isn't happening...I guess you're sticking to your pledge...4 MORE YEARS of complaining....I'm ready....BRING IT ON!!!!

Don't say "screw you" Tony H because this fight of ideas must continue for as long as it takes to make enough people understand that government assistance is not the best answer. Government takes AWAY freedoms. There shall ALWAYS be a price to pay when dealing with governement handouts. Even the recipient loses with every assistance check recieved -- loses a piece of him/herself.

to discredit my statements.........

>>>I also don't think that survivor's benefits should be determined by what the dead father/mother would have earned in their lifetime

that check is a disability check based on Tommy's father's CURRENT earnings and isn't calculated on future earnings.

You don't think what a person "would have earned" should be used, in a later statement you claim it isn't used, and you know it hasn't been used, BEFORE you made ANY posts in this thread.>>>

There is a difference between a SURVIVOR and someone on DISABILITY benefits.........In my case, my kids were receiving survivor's benefits based on their fathers' future earnings. In Tommy's case, his father is still alive so HIS benefits were based on his dad's current earnings. SSI here is normally given to an adult who is either expected to die or recover within a specific period of time (around two years, I believe)....in a child's case, it can become a permanent benefit based on one of his/her living parent's current earnings record (dependent upon which parent earns the most since the higher benefit is required). That child can continue to collect that benefit for his entire life if the disability never goes away.

Now, you have provided a link that shows that some time after 1989, the method of calculating the survivor benefit was changed........but basically called me a liar for not providing a link to 40 year old methods used during the time that my children were collecting. I don't care if you don't believe what I've said. My kids stopped collecting long ago.

The entire conversation was to point out to you that there are a good number of CHILDREN collecting from the Social Security system, and nobody discusses that aspect........people in the news and people in the political field only discuss seniors. My point is that social security needs to be reformed and new calculation methods and means testing is something that seriously needs to be looked at seriously.

The end...........