Far Right arguing with Kiplinger's now?

I'm sick of hearing the Far Right whine about disabled workers receiving government benefits that these workers paid for. If the right-wingers think it's so easy being disabled, why don't they try it themselves?

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is a benefit for workers who are disabled or suffer a chronic medical condition. It's an earned benefit - not welfare. In all cases, these workers paid into the system to receive this benefit. I'm not criticizing welfare, because welfare does serve a need for Americans who qualify. But SSDI is not welfare.

Despite this, Republicans in Congress have introduced bill after bill to slash SSDI or kick people off the rolls. One bill would cut SSDI payments down to poverty levels. Its supporters argue that this is because SSDI is intended to be just a subsistence program - not income replacement insurance. But if that's the case, why do workers pay into it? Why don't they instead just get SSI, which pays far less?

Now a new article about SSDI for part-time workers should kablammo the Far Right's mating call plumb-bob into the troposphere. And it's in Kiplinger's Personal Finance, of all places. The piece says, "SSDI is an income replacement insurance for former workers with disabilities, provided through the Social Security Administration."

Well, how ya like that, right-wingers? Gonna argue with Kiplinger's about SSDI?

I repeat, Kiplinger's says it's "income replacement insurance." That's a direct quote.

Then again, by attempting to slash SSDI payments to the poverty level, the GOP has accidentally admitted that SSI doesn't pay enough - for SSI pays even less than the poverty level. Instead of reducing SSDI to a poverty sum, they should raise SSI to that level. Like SSDI, SSI is an earned benefit.

It's also fair to say that the government defines the poverty level as much lower than it should be. While the official poverty line may be almost enough for an individual who lives in a medium-sized, slow-growing city, what about families who live in one of America's huge, booming cities, where housing costs are soaring faster than anywhere? Instead of tax cuts for the 1% and big corporations, why not stronger benefits for the 99%?