Guest guest Posted March 2, 2002 Report Share Posted March 2, 2002 Hi a, This doctor was paid very well to do this. I am so upset with my attorney he never returned my phone call. See no one is treating for the carpal tunnel or neck injury. Once I got the RA we had to work with that plus all the pain killers I am on helped that too. I am so worried. I wake up and don't know what to worry about. I am going to keep calling that attorney till he talks to me. I will do what I do best and pray. Hope you are feeling well, ` Lynn ---------- > From: a <paula54@...> > > Subject: Re: [ ] OT social security > Date: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:41 PM > > Lynn, > That doctor must be on drugs. I am shocked that any doctor would say > that you're able > to work! This emotional roller coaster ride has to end somewhere very > soon. I hope > your attorney can get this settled quickly for you. > It's cold here in NJ too, and tomorrow we are supposed to get much > needed rain. But then > the weather is supposed to warm up again. We sure can't complain about > this mild winter, > but I'll be glad when summer gets here. > Hope you have a good day, > a > > > Ruf-Caimi wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > Well with my good news the other day I was relieved. But in the > > mail box > > today I got a notice that the workman compensation Dr., said I am fine and > > can work. So now they are putting it into court again. They did this > > before that time I won. I called my attorney and I am still waiting for > > him to call me back. Maybe the social security will be in place > > before any > > of this happens. Last time I had to pay my one Dr., for his > > deposition and > > it cost $2,000. I just don't have that kind of money now. Plus no > > Dr., is > > treating me for the neck injury. Do they think the bad neck and carpal > > tunnel just went away or what. I am on so many pain killers for the RA > > that the neck and carpal tunnel just was not the main problem any more. > > Hope everyone is having a good day. It is cold here in Pa, I think > > tonight it will be very cold. > > Lynn > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2002 Report Share Posted March 3, 2002 Hi Lynn,I can't believe all the problems you are having and then to be told you can work makes absolutely no sense atall. It is just terrible what you have been put through. It must be entirely different in Canada since I have heard of having to have an attorney to get SS. Although,just recently they changed our disability tax credit which knocked hundreds of people off being able to claim it.I am fortunate that my GP fills out the form saying I am disabled and could not walk the 400 meters that determines whether you are eligible. I will pray for you and hope that by summer all this will be behind you. Hugs June Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2002 Report Share Posted March 5, 2002 I have waited to answer you a. I was hoping my attorney would call me but he hasn't it. I guess I am suppose to just worry? I wonder if he understand the situation I am in. He is a very nice man and has been more than kind to me in these seven years. I have been told he the most honest lawyer there is. But a phone call would be nice. For me I will just pray. I hope you are feeling well, I think of you often. Isn't it cold. Last night coming home from school it was freezing walking to the car. When you walk slow it is worse. Hope you have a good day. If he should call I will let you know. Thank you for your kind words they mean so much to me. Lynn ---------- > From: a <paula54@...> > > Subject: Re: [ ] OT social security > Date: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:49 PM > > Lynn, > > Don't let it upset you. I know that's hard to do, but it really won't > help to get upset. > Just have faith that your attorney will do his job. I expected WC to > say that all your > problems have nothing to do with the initial injury, and blame it all on > RA. > To say you can work is insane. You can't even eat let alone work, but they > can say that has nothing to do with carpal tunnel or your neck injury. > I know how worried you are. It's got to be tough. I'm hoping SS comes > through > quickly and then WC will have to follow. > Sorry about the endoscopy, but if it will help shed light, it must be > done. I'll > keep you in my prayers Lynn. > Hope you can find something good to keep your mind off of those idiots. > a > > > > Ruf-Caimi wrote: > > > Hi a, > > Well my attorney still hasn't called but he send me the report > > from the WC > > doctor. I didn't read it I just put it in a draw. I think if I read it I > > will get too upset and end up back in the hospital. There was a note > > stating they will ask the termination notice and get back to me. I am > > calling him on Tuesday and telling him I will stay home till he calls me. > > I also found out that I really do need the endoscopy. I ask two > > questions > > 1. Is this something that will have to be done ever so often. I was told > > to cross if we get there. I figure they don't know. 2. If there is no > > scar tissue is this what I am let with. My primary told me no , he will > > find me help but we need to see if it is the scar tissue or not. So I > > guess March 19 is the big day. > > This is so stressful doesn't help anything. I don't mean to > > vent but I am > > so worried. I feel like everything is coming to head and I am helpless. > > Lynn > > > > ---------- > > > From: a <paula54@...> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ ] OT social security > > > Date: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:41 PM > > > > > > Lynn, > > > That doctor must be on drugs. I am shocked that any doctor would say > > > that you're able > > > to work! This emotional roller coaster ride has to end somewhere very > > > soon. I hope > > > your attorney can get this settled quickly for you. > > > It's cold here in NJ too, and tomorrow we are supposed to get much > > > needed rain. But then > > > the weather is supposed to warm up again. We sure can't complain > > about > > > this mild winter, > > > but I'll be glad when summer gets here. > > > Hope you have a good day, > > > a > > > > > > > > > Ruf-Caimi wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > Well with my good news the other day I was relieved. But in > > the > > > > mail box > > > > today I got a notice that the workman compensation Dr., said I am fine > > and > > > > can work. So now they are putting it into court again. They did this > > > > before that time I won. I called my attorney and I am still waiting > > for > > > > him to call me back. Maybe the social security will be in place > > > > before any > > > > of this happens. Last time I had to pay my one Dr., for his > > > > deposition and > > > > it cost $2,000. I just don't have that kind of money now. Plus no > > > > Dr., is > > > > treating me for the neck injury. Do they think the bad neck and > > carpal > > > > tunnel just went away or what. I am on so many pain killers for > > the RA > > > > that the neck and carpal tunnel just was not the main problem any > > more. > > > > Hope everyone is having a good day. It is cold here in Pa, I > > think > > > > tonight it will be very cold. > > > > Lynn > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 by the Daytona Beach News-Journal (Florida) Manipulative Math on Social Security by Pierre Tristam It would be inaccurate to call the president's characterization of the future of Social Security "inaccurate." When he said in the State of the Union address that "by 2042 the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt," the president was simply lying. His subsequent campaign across the country for "saving" Social Security, presidential seals and pomp aside, had the feel of charlatanry emboldened by the success of previous great lies -- on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, on Saddam's ties with al-Qaida, on surplus-preserving tax cuts, to name the creme-de-la-crock. By any standard, a system that is "exhausted and bankrupt" is a system that cannot pay a cent. By all accounts, including those of the White House, the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits at least through 2042, and by other government estimates, at least through 2052. After that, if not a single change is made to the program (which has been adjusted numerous times over the past 70 years to keep up with evolving realities, as any government program should be), the system will still be able to pay out 70 percent to 80 percent of benefits. Bankrupt? Not even close. The president is abusing another misconception that has the ring of gospel: That the fewer people pay into Social Security, the harder it is for Social Security to meet its obligations. Bunk. In 1962, there were five workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Social Security ran a $1.3 billion deficit that year. In 2004, it was down to three workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Social Security ran a $151 billion surplus. True, lawmakers decided in 1977 and 1983 to expand the system from pay-as-you-go to include a savings account in preparation for the boomers' impact. But the surplus has exceeded expectations. It was expected to run out in 2029 just six years ago but just got a 13- or 23-year extension. What gives? Simply this: It isn't just the number of workers paying into the system that matters. It is the kind of worker they are. A single engineer making $90,000 a year will contribute as much money to Social Security as eight burger-flippers making minimum wage. Not all benefits are drawn equally, of course. But some redistribution (the kind that rankles Republican sensibilities) is built into the system. Productivity also matters. It took more than 10 farm workers to feed 100 people 70 years ago. It takes one farm worker to do that today. It'll take even fewer in the future. Apply the same productivity principle to Social Security, and the worker-to-retiree ratio begins to look as outdated as the mule-driven plow. Yet mule math persists. The way Bush uses numbers selectively is a telling example. He promises to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by reducing it from 3.5 percent of the size of the economy's GDP to 1.7 percent. To do so, he's projecting an economic growth rate averaging 5.5 percent each of the next five years (in current dollars), based on an expansion of GDP from $11.7 trillion in 2004 to $15.3 trillion in 2009. Fine. Take him at his word and his calculations. But when the president turns to calculating Social Security's future health, he bases his assumptions of economic growth on the Social Security Administration's notoriously pessimistic calculations: An average annual growth of 1.8 percent over the next 20 years, an annual average worsening to 1.3 percent after that (the last 20 years' average was 2.6 percent) and anemic wage growth. The Social Security Administration's calculations are also based on zero net increases in immigration, even though the 1990s saw an increase of 11 million immigrants (compared with 6 million in the 1970s and 7 million in the 1980s). It is under that scenario that the trust fund would not be able to meet 100 percent of its liability beyond 2042. The scenario is so unrealistic that Bush would never dream applying it to his other economic projections. The reality is that between new immigrants and a fertility rate well above Europe's, which together are projected to raise America's population close to half a billion by 2050, and an economic growth rate matching the average of the last 20 years, Social Security's future is assured well past 2042 without a single change in current law. Add to that the few, modest reforms cooler heads propose (a bump in the retirement age, raising the earnings cap on payroll taxes that now exempts income above $90,000, folding 4 million state and local employees into the system, and yes, raising the payroll tax but by less than a combined 1 percent on both employee and employer) and the Social Security Trust Fund could not only age as gracefully as Methuselah but also subsidize a few of Canada's retirees. A crisis is indeed facing Social Security. It isn't bankruptcy. It is President Bush's proposed thievery, on Wall Street's behalf and with voodoo calculations, of the nation's most successful and functional government program. Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@.... © 2005 News-Journal Corporation ###Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives © Copyrighted 1997-2005http://www.commondreams.org/ Social Security Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives Featured Views Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article Published on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 by the Daytona Beach News-Journal (Florida) Manipulative Math on Social Security by Pierre Tristam It would be inaccurate to call the president's characterization of the future of Social Security "inaccurate." When he said in the State of the Union address that "by 2042 the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt," the president was simply lying. His subsequent campaign across the country for "saving" Social Security, presidential seals and pomp aside, had the feel of charlatanry emboldened by the success of previous great lies -- on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, on Saddam's ties with al-Qaida, on surplus-preserving tax cuts, to name the creme-de-la-crock. By any standard, a system that is "exhausted and bankrupt" is a system that cannot pay a cent. By all accounts, including those of the White House, the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to pay full benefits at least through 2042, and by other government estimates, at least through 2052. After that, if not a single change is made to the program (which has been adjusted numerous times over the past 70 years to keep up with evolving realities, as any government program should be), the system will still be able to pay out 70 percent to 80 percent of benefits. Bankrupt? Not even close. The president is abusing another misconception that has the ring of gospel: That the fewer people pay into Social Security, the harder it is for Social Security to meet its obligations. Bunk. In 1962, there were five workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Social Security ran a $1.3 billion deficit that year. In 2004, it was down to three workers for every Social Security beneficiary. Social Security ran a $151 billion surplus. True, lawmakers decided in 1977 and 1983 to expand the system from pay-as-you-go to include a savings account in preparation for the boomers' impact. But the surplus has exceeded expectations. It was expected to run out in 2029 just six years ago but just got a 13- or 23-year extension. What gives? Simply this: It isn't just the number of workers paying into the system that matters. It is the kind of worker they are. A single engineer making $90,000 a year will contribute as much money to Social Security as eight burger-flippers making minimum wage. Not all benefits are drawn equally, of course. But some redistribution (the kind that rankles Republican sensibilities) is built into the system. Productivity also matters. It took more than 10 farm workers to feed 100 people 70 years ago. It takes one farm worker to do that today. It'll take even fewer in the future. Apply the same productivity principle to Social Security, and the worker-to-retiree ratio begins to look as outdated as the mule-driven plow. Yet mule math persists. The way Bush uses numbers selectively is a telling example. He promises to cut the deficit in half by 2009 by reducing it from 3.5 percent of the size of the economy's GDP to 1.7 percent. To do so, he's projecting an economic growth rate averaging 5.5 percent each of the next five years (in current dollars), based on an expansion of GDP from $11.7 trillion in 2004 to $15.3 trillion in 2009. Fine. Take him at his word and his calculations. But when the president turns to calculating Social Security's future health, he bases his assumptions of economic growth on the Social Security Administration's notoriously pessimistic calculations: An average annual growth of 1.8 percent over the next 20 years, an annual average worsening to 1.3 percent after that (the last 20 years' average was 2.6 percent) and anemic wage growth. The Social Security Administration's calculations are also based on zero net increases in immigration, even though the 1990s saw an increase of 11 million immigrants (compared with 6 million in the 1970s and 7 million in the 1980s). It is under that scenario that the trust fund would not be able to meet 100 percent of its liability beyond 2042. The scenario is so unrealistic that Bush would never dream applying it to his other economic projections. The reality is that between new immigrants and a fertility rate well above Europe's, which together are projected to raise America's population close to half a billion by 2050, and an economic growth rate matching the average of the last 20 years, Social Security's future is assured well past 2042 without a single change in current law. Add to that the few, modest reforms cooler heads propose (a bump in the retirement age, raising the earnings cap on payroll taxes that now exempts income above $90,000, folding 4 million state and local employees into the system, and yes, raising the payroll tax but by less than a combined 1 percent on both employee and employer) and the Social Security Trust Fund could not only age as gracefully as Methuselah but also subsidize a few of Canada's retirees. A crisis is indeed facing Social Security. It isn't bankruptcy. It is President Bush's proposed thievery, on Wall Street's behalf and with voodoo calculations, of the nation's most successful and functional government program. Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@.... © 2005 News-Journal Corporation ###Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Common Dreams NewsCenter A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the progressive community. Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives © Copyrighted 1997-2005www.commondreams.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.