SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income) are both Social Security Administration (SSA) programs providing financial support for disabled individuals, but they differ significantly in their eligibility requirements and funding sources. SSDI is based on work history and contributions to the Social Security system through payroll taxes, while SSI is a needs-based program for those with limited income and resources, regardless of work history.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance):
Eligibility: Based on work history and contributions to the Social Security system through payroll taxes.
Funding: Financed through Social Security taxes paid by workers and employers.
Work Credits: Requires a certain number of work credits, usually 40, with 20 earned in the last 10 years.
Benefits: Pays benefits to the disabled individual and potentially certain family members.
Benefit Amount: Calculated based on the individual's average lifetime earnings.
SSI (Supplemental Security Income):
Eligibility: Based on financial need, with limited income and resources.
Funding: Financed by general tax revenues.
Work History: No work history required.
Benefits: Provides a monthly income to cover basic needs like food, clothing, and housing for those who qualify.
Benefit Amount: A standard monthly amount, with potential supplements from states.
Resource Limits: Strict limits on assets and income.
Key Differences Summarized:
Work History: SSDI requires a work history, SSI does not.
Funding Source: SSDI is funded by Social Security taxes, SSI by general tax revenues.
Eligibility: SSDI eligibility is tied to work credits, SSI is based on financial need.
Benefits: SSDI pays benefits based on earnings, SSI provides a standard amount based on need.
State Supplements: Some states offer additional payments to SSI recipients but not to SSDI recipients.

First by having their money reduced and second they risk losing said disability benefits if they are deemed able to work.
In other words it's a crap hand they are given.

That is untrue. Social security has work incentives. You can earn money at work up to a certain threshold with no reduction. After the threshold, you check is reduced, roughly speaking, by one dollar for every two you earn. If you maintain gainful employment your eligibility begins to phase out. If your disability rears it's ugly head and you are no longer able to maintain employment you are fast tracked back to where you were, during an extended period of eligibility.

If one is working a fruitful job and earning pay that exceeds the income eligibility limit along with it, you obviously aren't any longer disabled and are obviously no longer financially in need. it isn't a punishment. But talk like that is red meat for the "fraud and abuse" crowd.

SS disability for years and early on was able to work part time and then my rheumatoid arthritis got so much worse, I had to stop working. I never made enough money to have any of my disability taken back though.

and they're not the same.

The irony of this is that I know locally here (and I suppose it's something that was a carryover from the Biden administration), there have been PSAs (Public Service Announcements) that run periodically through the day on my local news radio station about SSI and how people could apply for it. Every time I hear that commercial, I groan at the radio figuring that it is probably going to be completely torpedoed by 45... so they might as well pull the ad.

ETA - I found a page where they have the ads available (am not able to get the audio ones to work but the youtube versions do and have a different voice actor than the radio ad) - https://www.ssa.gov/thirdparty/groups/vulnerable-populations-psa.html

Besides the wealthy and billionaires, I mean. I wish one of these right wingers would tell me how every day Americans lives have improved because of him

so they don't have to "look at" certain people anymore or "listen to them speak" or "hear their music".

rules and legislation. I wish President Biden had made a rule that benefitted traitor felon only and see if he'd get rid of it, just to prove how petty he is.

In the meantime, traitor felon mass murderer and his thugs are running up their death count, which is and will be their only claim to fame.

President Biden repaired damage, tried to improve the current situation and tried to protect the future. He was a master at filling his administration with experienced and able people, selecting on merit not tv appearances. The whole time he was in office, there were unrelenting attacks to not only undermine President Biden's administration and block any permanant improvement. The only thing President Biden might have done differently was to play hardball when the rwnj stopped following the law.

This is why you play the political game, because you have to not because you want to. Just like RBG dropped the ball by not allowing herself to be replaced by a younger judge during Obama's term. Your ego can be the most destructive thing to yourself and to others.

The difference being that President Biden and other Democratic presidents did work that mainly benefitted many people and rwnj do things that harm many people.
I regret that Madame Clinton or V.P. Harris were not elected, although I think they were robbed, but in this fractioned country, it's easier to think a white guy will run and win. Surprisingly, people resistant to women and POC come in all age groups. Mary, Mother of God, could run and would probably lose to whatever the rwnj churn up.

created, caused and enabled fascism and continues to do so, no doubt. Have you signed up for your non-violent protest training?

FYI, from where I'm sitting I saw the most progressive president in any of our lifetimes get shoved under the bus by his alleged "allies" and kicked a few times to boot.

and you respond by attacking Joe Biden?

I received a letter about a week ago from Soc Sec asking for my Compromise and Release documents from my worker's comp settlement.

At the time, we covered 'Hamilton' which is a ruling that prevents Soc Sec from reducing benefits due to a settlement.

It seems they are attacking that as well. I fully expect they are going to try to reduce or eliminate my benefits (or worse, 'claw back' money they think they overpaid).

I went through an overpayment debacle already. It took over 3 years to resolve.

If I'm lucky, I can draw it out until he is gone, but I don't see that. They have been very quick with implementing cruelty.


I live in the Bay Area (my mom is over 80 now, so I can't really be far from her). If they reduce my benefits I don't know what I will do. I work part time (within SSDI limits) to cover my bills that SSDI doesn't, but I often am close to the limit, so cannot work more to compensate (further wrecking my spine... weeeeeeeee!!!!!).

SSDI?