Nathan
Well-known Member
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
O.K., I'll take your word for it, I don't watch MSNBC. Pravada? Putin's daily read....
No need to argue, but just curious- AARP's liberal bias is "well established" by whom, exactly?
The Inability to Speak English Shouldn’t Qualify as "Disability" for Social Security
- Thread starter macgeek
- Start date
No need to argue, but just curious- AARP's liberal bias is "well established" by whom, exactly?
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
IMO, anyone who chooses to migrate to another nation should have an obligation to learn the local language, and begin to adhere to the local customs. Maintaining their original language is ok, but when dealing with the public, they should make an attempt to "assimilate".
Years ago, when I went to Germany for several years, with the USAF, one of the first things I did was take some basic German language classes that were offered on the base. Being able to communicate with the local people...albeit a bit "shaky" at first....sure made my time over there a lot more enjoyable.
If I were "King" one of the things I would do is eliminate all this "Spanish" labeling on all the consumer products. And, if that posed a problem for the Latino's, I would fund classes to help them learn English. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of Global languages, but only Spanish seems to be a "requirement".
Years ago, when I went to Germany for several years, with the USAF, one of the first things I did was take some basic German language classes that were offered on the base. Being able to communicate with the local people...albeit a bit "shaky" at first....sure made my time over there a lot more enjoyable.
If I were "King" one of the things I would do is eliminate all this "Spanish" labeling on all the consumer products. And, if that posed a problem for the Latino's, I would fund classes to help them learn English. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of Global languages, but only Spanish seems to be a "requirement".
macgeek
Member
good advice that works both ways.
Last edited:
JimBob1952
Senior Member
AARP is liberal enough that a conservative alternate was established about ten years ago. I think it's called AMAC. There is another one called the American Seniors Association.
I looked at the AARP website. It's mildly, not wildly liberal. AARP likes big-government solutions but so do lots of people.
This is from an investment website:
Among other things, AARP supported President Bill Clinton’s 1994 push for a large expansion of government involvement in healthcare. In 2005, the organization helped stop a Republican-led attempt to reconfigure Social Security benefits to put the SS program on a more solid financial footing. And in 2010, AARP riled many of its more conservative-minded members with its strong support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
AARP’s Obamacare stance cost the group about 300,000 members, many of whom affiliated with other senior groups. “We made an offer to anyone who cut their AARP card in half that we’d give them a year’s free membership,” says Randy Lewin, spokesman for the American Seniors Association, which bills itself as the “conservative alternative” to AARP. “We had to stop [the promotion] early. I had too many 55-gallon trash bags full of AARP cards cut in half.”
Jim Martin of the 60 Plus Association, which also uses the “conservative alternative to AARP” line, pulls no punches. He calls the AARP “a huge fraud on seniors, profiting by commission from a variety of money-making schemes…and promoting programs of big government and high taxes which [ultimately] hurt, not help” older Americans.
Nathan
Well-known Member
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
OK, thanks JimBob, I never suspected that an organization like AARP would have any political leanings either way. To me, AARP is just an insurance market place, sprinkled with links and informational tidbits of interest to the target audience- senior citizens.
Edit: To be honest, I can't see why any senior would want to be affiliated with ANY commercial entity like 60 Plus or AARP that have a political agenda....at our age are we not proud of our intelligence and knowledge, so much so as to want to have our views spoon-fed to us?
Edit: To be honest, I can't see why any senior would want to be affiliated with ANY commercial entity like 60 Plus or AARP that have a political agenda....at our age are we not proud of our intelligence and knowledge, so much so as to want to have our views spoon-fed to us?
Last edited:
I'mnotdeadyet
Member
- Location
- SE Michigan
This. Plus, all you gotta' do is say you're a senior, and you still get the discount!
The truth is AARP does not support candidates on either side, and they've been investigated several times for candidate donations by their officers, etc. None of these investigations have ever shown a bias one way or the other, however, their support for policies are always to the left. They are very careful to keep their leanings in the background.
Nathan
Well-known Member
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
So, what type of policies are we talking about here...being "to the left"? Wait, I Googled "AARP too left leaning" and came across this FOX piece on The O'Reilly Factor, in which Bill O'Reilly interviews AARP president Lee Hammond to whom he admits to being an AARP member. Hmmm, so O'Reilly badgers Hammond for not having enough "conservative voices" in their articles, and that AARP's magazine cover has only had GHWB on the cover, and all the rest "Every one of them is a left-winger, every one". Ooookay.
Otherwise, no real discussion of "left wing" policies.
I'mnotdeadyet
Member
- Location
- SE Michigan
I don't think anyone but you said 'left wing'. I used the term left leaning and left of center in their policy support. I don't see any other reference to left wing. There is a distinct difference.
Instead of trying to find sources that claim they are left, why not spend the same time looking into the policies they support and deciding for yourself? While I may feel their policies are liberal, your barometer may read differently.
Keep in mind that if JFK were alive today he'd be considered conservative.
Instead of trying to find sources that claim they are left, why not spend the same time looking into the policies they support and deciding for yourself? While I may feel their policies are liberal, your barometer may read differently.
Keep in mind that if JFK were alive today he'd be considered conservative.
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
YES! It's not like you can get disability benefits just for the inability to speak English.
The Social Security website states:
"To qualify for Social Security disability benefits, you must first have worked in jobs covered by Social Security. Then you must have a medical condition that meets Social Security's definition of disability. In general, we pay monthly benefits to people who are unable to work for a year or more because of a disability.
In addition to meeting our definition of disability, you must have worked long enough — and recently enough — under Social Security to qualify for disability benefits.
Social Security work credits are based on your total yearly wages or self-employment income. You can earn up to four credits each year.
The amount needed for a work credit changes from year to year. In 2020, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,410 in wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $5,640, you've earned your four credits for the year.
The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when you become disabled. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year you become disabled. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits."
Damaged Goods
Member
- Location
- Maryland
Your son's impairment satisfies the medical requirements on that basis alone. There is no need to consider any vocational factors such as education.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/appendix-1_to_subpart_P_of_part_404
(...)
1. Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning evidenced by a or b:
a. A full scale (or comparable) IQ score of 70 or below on an individually administered standardized test of general intelligence; or
(...)
Yes I know. Children, disabled at birth, qualify for SSDI from birth. My other disabled son also receives SSDI. While his IQ is, 80, he also can not read or write. He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and many other physical defects. He has had cancer and he is total care.
He also has graduated HS and has diploma. While he speaks English, his language is not understandable unless you are used to his garbled speech.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
He can't read or write but graduated HS?
Yes, of course, most every disabled child goes to school till they are 22 and graduates. They are taught practical things. Getting along, to be non aggressive, make simple food, use microwave, don’t eat crayons, make your bed do dishes etc. If they have the ability to read and write, they will be taught to do so.
The totally disabled work on not biting people, not yelling and screaming, chewing food, swallowing etc. Those unable to learn, due to severe mental retardation or other very severe disabilities still go to school, and still graduate.
Before the virus both my boys worked at sheltered workshop. My son has a beautiful smile so he was a greeter. My son with DS worked at a restaurant wrapping the forks and spoons in a napkin and putting butter on dishes.
Did you think disabled kids stayed at home and learned nothing?
Damaged Goods
Member
- Location
- Maryland
Yes I know. Children, disabled at birth, qualify for SSDI from birth. My other disabled son also receives SSDI. While his IQ is, 80, he also can not read or write. He has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, a seizure disorder, and many other physical defects. He has had cancer and he is total care.
A child disabled at birth who has never worked qualifies as a title II disabled adult child on the work record of the parent rather than title II SSDI.
- 18 years of age or older;
- disabled by SSA's definition before age 22;
- the child of insured workers who are either disabled, retired or deceased;
- have filed an application for child's benefits; and
- be unmarried (some exceptions - if adult child marries, benefits end, unless marriage is to another social security beneficiary).
My condolences for the crosses you bear.
I adopted my two disabled children. They are not a cross to bear but wonderful people who bring me great joy. My son with DS is my favorite child. Life would have been so dull and empty without him. No condolences necessary.
JB in SC
Member
Yep and they sold seniors down the river when they backed the ACA. Rewarded to the tune of a billion dollars over ten years for their flat fee licensing for advantage plans and AARP specific carve outs to eliminate rate regulations.
Anyone on SSDI knows how hard it is to get SSDI. You have to have worked for so long and made a certain amount to qualify to even be considered for disability benefits. Plus after going through the pre screening, you then have to apply and go to appointments to see doctors. The best case scenario is a 6mo wait from month of first applying getting your first disability payment, and you cannot be working while trying to get disability(most cant). I know there is a different kind of supplement people can get that isn't disability. But its not easy to qualify for disability or is it cost effective....Plus its not like you get a lot of money on disability. Anyone on disability benefits is lucky to be poverty level. So, don't believe everything you read.
For disabled at birth, it is not hard. For drug addicts, IMO, it is not hard. But, yup, for everyone else, very hard.
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
You're absolutely right, though I've never known anyone except those who are disabled from birth or those who are fast-tracked because they are terminally ill to get their first payment within 6 months. IMO It's more like at least a year, sometimes two.
And yes, disability benefits are actually very little money. So the myth of somebody on disability living like a king on disability is just that -- a myth.
Absolutely true @Butterfly
Butterfly
SF VIP
- Location
- Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
The rules for drug and alcohol addiction were tightened up in 2017. You can no longer get disability benefits for addictions alone -- only if that addiction caused physical damage that causes seizures, etc., that prevent you from working.
I did not know that, thanks