Talks for VP candidates right now are:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions

Of those, I think Trump should consider Pence or Sessions. The other two are failed presidential candidates, with a lot of baggage.

JFoster Wrote: My grandparents are doing this dance right now. My grandmother is in the late stages of parkinsons. For a long time, they could only afford to keep her at home with a nurse who visited every day. The nurse was paid out of pocket by my family. Since her last stint in the hospital, she is in a nursing home. The money from Medicaid is limited to only 20 days. If it wasn't for the kindness of the nursing home by letting them pay what they can, she would be sent back home.

Conflicting issue here.

On one hand, there is the real concern that providing that kind of safety net would encourage some people to just give up and rely on the system to fully provide for them.

On the other, even with publicly provided housing, the housing itself couldn't be very nice. By virtue of limited funding. Would have to be built on the very cheap. Just the bare bones essentials. So its' not like 99% of us would actually want to live under even those conditions.

Most people are capable, willing and want to provide for themselves. For those that cannot or willnot, that small subset will always exist on some level. So to avoid it and not catch their eye level as you pass them on the street.. seems better just to face the problem head on and aim for rehabilitation over just ignoring the issue and hope it goes away.

Good points here. I am thinking exactly the same thing. Apparently the folks over at HBO's Last Week Tonight are wanting to get in on the conversation of retirement savings too. Watched this a bit ago, very funny and informative; worth your time I think:

JFoster Wrote: What if the job doesn't work out? When it comes to the population of government workers, civilians make up the majority. I think this preference evens the field.

Keep in mind this is only for federal, government jobs. And if it doesn't work out, the only scenario in which it would then hurt the vet applicant unduly (in my view) is if the management forced that person out of the first job unfairly. If it ends for most any other reason, then that job will then go on that vet's resume.

Basically what I'm saying is that the applicant should have a good idea of what they are getting themselves into, with the position. If they turn out just not to like the job, then they should move on, hopefully after they have given it a legitimate chance. Like a solid year or so, to get that experience on their resume. And they won't need anymore added points in the next round of employment searching after that.

This gets a little confusing, if you're new to the subject. But basically it breaks down like this - if you are a vet and apply for a government job right now, you get an added advantage in the application process when applying for a government job. Equates to "5 to 10 extra points" in your favor, over non vets applying for the same job. This is something actually in law called 'Veterans' Preference'. And I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject, so follow that link for full details.

Reason for this thread is that 2017 will very likely see a rule change to the preferential treatment to hiring vets. Right now the rule works for all jobs vets apply for. But they are now wanting to change it to just the first government job at vet applies for, and gets, that's also important.

The logic is that a vet deserves a leg up to get their career started. Which I totally support. But once they land their first government job, the preferential treatment needs to end, and instead for any further job, getting employed over another non-vet should only rely on who is more qualified. Another idea I completely agree with.

What are your thoughts on this? Should vets be limited in this way, or should they get extra-ordinary hiring consideration from the government for every job for their entire working lives? Also consider that even if it's not law, it's quite clear their military service is on their resume, and hiring managers clearly are usually biased towards vets in the first place. A good amount of the time anyways.

Simple answer is yes. Sorry for late response. Hope this helps someone at least in a similar situation. The exert to answer this question:

Once you reach full retirement age, your benefits simply convert to retirement benefits, but your payment amount will not change. Your future retirement benefits are not reduced even though you were able to collect Social Security early. Also, you will get the benefit of a “disability freeze.”

Here are some resources to fully answer how it works:

Getting Social Security Disability Benefits After Age 60

What Will Happen to My Disability Benefits When I Turn 65?