In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
In the Supreme Court, free speech is often a partisan issue.
Justices -- liberal and conservative -- are more likely to vote for free-speech rights when the speaker shares their ideology, according to an eye-opening new study by the University of Southern California which looks at 4,519 votes from 1953 to 2011 and concludes that "justices are opportunistic free speechers."
The most opportunistic member over that span was found to be Justice Antonin Scalia, who was just over three times as supportive of free-speech rights of conservatives as compared to liberals.
Not far behind him was Justice Clarence Thomas, who was just under three times as likely to back conservatives' free-speech rights over liberals.
Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor -- both Reagan appointees, and often swing votes -- were also found to have a statistically significant preference for free speech rights of conservatives over liberals.
The disparity exists with liberal members, too. Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, was likelier to support the free speech claim by a liberal as compared to a conservative. Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were not found to have a statistically significant preference in their cases.
"[Justices'] votes are neither reflexively pro- or anti-the First Amendment but rather pro- or anti- the speaker's ideological enclave," the researchers say.
The USC study measured the percentage of support for free speech claims by justices. The results for Bush appointees Samuel Alito and John Roberts could not be fully modeled, given their fewer votes, but early data suggest they follow a highly opportunistic pattern, too. Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were excluded from the study because they have not yet cast enough First Amendment votes in their time on the court.
On May 07 2014 12:44 oneofthem wrote: the state courts are absolutely not consistent and you'll get these clusters of absurd approval rate for stuff. it's not limited to disability.
Well that's a bummer. Hopefully we could still make some improvement.
well the lower/administrative courts are also pretty oblivious to the impact of their decisions, so some attention raising is necessary. but with stuff like this you'll have entrenched judges, and maybe some shopping for judges, especially in areas where it's already a 'thing' and people are keen to game the system
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
I don't know for sure if that's the sort of thing he was getting at, but that's what I figure from the clip.
You are reminding me of Bill Gates with how charitable you are being with that interpretation, but I suppose there is a way to get there from what he said.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the idea of an alliance it just quite literally isn't what he said (either because he didn't know what his words meant or he meant what he said).
Your opponent would probably give counter stories from people who were denied benefits because they worked hard and didn't have money for medical treatment so they didn't have medical records proving disability or the countless other sympathy inducing situations the top reasons disability claims are denied inevitably create. Probably a picture like this
to back up the sympathy stories and support that this has become more common. Use that to say that we agree on reform but disagree on how to do it.
There are a lot of stories in the numbers cheaters represent a small part of the 'problem' + Show Spoiler +
I mean one could go on to point out how medical advancements which would allow for the medically conclusive determination of disabilities naturally going up along with recipients (ex. scanning and diagnosis technology)
The increase expected from population, people who struggled through legitimate disabilities but were fired during the great recession, etc...
There's a lot to deflate those numbers and the deeper one goes talking about who doesn't deserve help (disability in this case) the harder it is to come back when someone points out how many of those people aren't who you made them out to be.
Either way it sounds like a losing political battle in the legacy of Romney's 47% comments.
there's definitely a real problem at least in places with abnormally high number of approvals. these systems are pretty uneven at the place where rubber meets the road. however, i do agree that a stigma on disability getters is unneeded.
On May 07 2014 13:28 oneofthem wrote: there's definitely a real problem at least in places with abnormally high number of approvals. these systems are pretty uneven at the place where rubber meets the road. however, i do agree that a stigma on disability getters is unneeded.
Clearly the statistics show any alleged 'abnormally high approvals' are due to local issues and have little or no demonstrated impact on the overall numbers.
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
I don't know for sure if that's the sort of thing he was getting at, but that's what I figure from the clip.
You are reminding me of Bill Gates with how charitable you are being with that interpretation, but I suppose there is a way to get there from what he said.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the idea of an alliance it just quite literally isn't what he said (either because he didn't know what his words meant or he meant what he said).
It's pretty clear that's what he meant. He used a phrase wrong, there's no need to be a dick over it.
Your opponent would probably give counter stories from people who were denied benefits because they worked hard and didn't have money for medical treatment so they didn't have medical records proving disability or the countless other sympathy inducing situations the top reasons disability claims are denied inevitably create. Probably a picture like this
to back up the sympathy stories and support that this has become more common. Use that to say that we agree on reform but disagree on how to do it.
There are a lot of stories in the numbers cheaters represent a small part of the 'problem' + Show Spoiler +
I mean one could go on to point out how medical advancements which would allow for the medically conclusive determination of disabilities naturally going up along with recipients (ex. scanning and diagnosis technology)
The increase expected from population, people who struggled through legitimate disabilities but were fired during the great recession, etc...
There's a lot to deflate those numbers and the deeper one goes talking about who doesn't deserve help (disability in this case) the harder it is to come back when someone points out how many of those people aren't who you made them out to be.
Either way it sounds like a losing political battle in the legacy of Romney's 47% comments.
People who are abusing the disability system is a legitimate problem. To deny that is either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Of course we don't want to deny legitimate claims, but that's a different issue. Denying illegitimate claims is the goal, and efforts to minimize false positives will obviously be used.
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle.
On May 07 2014 13:28 oneofthem wrote: there's definitely a real problem at least in places with abnormally high number of approvals. these systems are pretty uneven at the place where rubber meets the road. however, i do agree that a stigma on disability getters is unneeded.
Clearly the statistics show any alleged 'abnormally high approvals' are due to local issues and have little or no demonstrated impact on the overall numbers.
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
I don't know for sure if that's the sort of thing he was getting at, but that's what I figure from the clip.
You are reminding me of Bill Gates with how charitable you are being with that interpretation, but I suppose there is a way to get there from what he said.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the idea of an alliance it just quite literally isn't what he said (either because he didn't know what his words meant or he meant what he said).
Your opponent would probably give counter stories from people who were denied benefits because they worked hard and didn't have money for medical treatment so they didn't have medical records proving disability or the countless other sympathy inducing situations the top reasons disability claims are denied inevitably create. Probably a picture like this
to back up the sympathy stories and support that this has become more common. Use that to say that we agree on reform but disagree on how to do it.
There are a lot of stories in the numbers cheaters represent a small part of the 'problem' + Show Spoiler +
I mean one could go on to point out how medical advancements which would allow for the medically conclusive determination of disabilities naturally going up along with recipients (ex. scanning and diagnosis technology)
The increase expected from population, people who struggled through legitimate disabilities but were fired during the great recession, etc...
There's a lot to deflate those numbers and the deeper one goes talking about who doesn't deserve help (disability in this case) the harder it is to come back when someone points out how many of those people aren't who you made them out to be.
Either way it sounds like a losing political battle in the legacy of Romney's 47% comments.
People who are abusing the disability system is a legitimate problem. To deny that is either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Of course we don't want to deny legitimate claims, but that's a different issue. Denying illegitimate claims is the goal, and efforts to minimize false positives will obviously be used.
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle.
It's a legitimate problem. It just makes up a relatively insignificant portion of the spending. Doesn't mean it's not worth improving it's just not something one side has over the other. No one is against reducing fraud and abuse (at least rhetorically) so at best it would be something that both sides agreed on.
The problem is statements like
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle
and more pointedly like he actually said, loosely paint with a broad brush an unspecified portion of disability recipients (and people pointing out characterizations like yours and his as inaccurate) as criminals and their advocates respectively.
You or he or anyone won't put a percentage on it because the same thing that happened to Romney will happen to those who do as you suggest. Either it will be a large headline grabbing percentage that will inevitably include veterans, widows, victims of spousal abuse, etc.. which will make the people calling them criminals look terrible, or it will be as I suggest and be relatively small when viewed in light of the entire program so that even if we were able to remove 100% of the fraud and abuse (which we all know is impossible) it wouldn't really amount to a very big dent in the numbers.
GAO Found That Error Rate In Improper Payments Of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits Is Negligible. A FY2011 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that improper payments of Social Security benefits that include Disability Insurance had an error rate of just 0.6 percent.
Former Bush Administration Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue explained on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes that fraud constitutes less than 1 percent of the outlays of Supplemental Security Income, one of the federal benefit programs for individuals with disabilities
His reaction to standard Republican/Conservative talking points like we have been going over is priceless.
Where is it he(or you) get your numbers on how much more it is from again?
EDIT: Unless, of course, the fight is to turn those 99%-'' of Americans vs the <1%-'whatever he or Conservatives like him want to claim' who are abusing the system?
If that's the case I think why that is a losing political strategy.
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
You are reminding me of Bill Gates with how charitable you are being with that interpretation, but I suppose there is a way to get there from what he said.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the idea of an alliance it just quite literally isn't what he said (either because he didn't know what his words meant or he meant what he said).
Your opponent would probably give counter stories from people who were denied benefits because they worked hard and didn't have money for medical treatment so they didn't have medical records proving disability or the countless other sympathy inducing situations the top reasons disability claims are denied inevitably create. Probably a picture like this
to back up the sympathy stories and support that this has become more common. Use that to say that we agree on reform but disagree on how to do it.
There are a lot of stories in the numbers cheaters represent a small part of the 'problem' + Show Spoiler +
I mean one could go on to point out how medical advancements which would allow for the medically conclusive determination of disabilities naturally going up along with recipients (ex. scanning and diagnosis technology)
The increase expected from population, people who struggled through legitimate disabilities but were fired during the great recession, etc...
There's a lot to deflate those numbers and the deeper one goes talking about who doesn't deserve help (disability in this case) the harder it is to come back when someone points out how many of those people aren't who you made them out to be.
Either way it sounds like a losing political battle in the legacy of Romney's 47% comments.
And then you say:
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle.
It sure sounds like you are talking about a lot more than <1%
So please tell me what percentage of outlays you think are due to fraud and/or abuse and please be so kind to show us where you are extracting these numbers from (If it's where I think it is it's definately NSFW)
North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-NC), the frontrunner in the North Carolina GOP Senate primary, told a crowd two and half years ago that we must "divide and conquer" people on government assistance. Tillis proposed pitting those who are legitimately in need against those who made bad choices.
Tillis made the comments in October 2011 in Asheville, North Carolina. They were reported by local press at the time and are being circulated now by the campaign of Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) whom Tillis is vying to unseat. They were highlighted on MSNBC"s Hardball Monday.
"What we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance," Tillis said. "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help. And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say at some point, ‘You’re on your own. We may end up taking care of those babies, but we’re not going to take care of you.’ And we’ve got to start having that serious discussion."
Tillis went on to say that discussion wouldn't happen until at least 2013.
"It won’t happen next year. Wrong time, ‘cause it’s going to be politically charged," Tillis said. "One of the reasons why I may never run for another elected office is that some of these things may just get me railroaded out of town. But in 2013, I honestly believe that we have to do that."
Tillis's comments were clipped by the North Carolina Justice Center's Health Access Coalition.
Do any conservatives/republicans want to say this is anything but a bad idea to think let alone say out loud?
I'm so dumbstruck (well, sort of) by this I don't even know where to start.
I can't even touch the nature of his argument itself but I have to say, even if he was 100% right as hunts seems to believe, it was at minimum the kind of statement that makes national Republicans (Presidential Candidates) cringe...?
I'm not sure if he meant/understood what he said... Perhaps Intro or someone would like to try to interpret what he meant, or should I just take him literally?
I'm not sure what the context of the video was, but the idea that public assistance has limits (i.e. you need to demonstrate genuine need) is pretty mainstream.
Are you suggesting that's what he was trying to say, or just stating that people have long agreed public assistance isn't unlimited?
Either way I'm not really sure how that was something that was in contention or in need of a plan to 'divide and conquer' (someone else pointed out how dumb that word choice was)?
It sounded like he was trying to draw a distinction between those who deserve help (definition tbd) and those who do not. He also suggested to ally with the deserving against the undeserving.
It's not a novel political alliance either. iirc WhiteDog has previously pointed out that people on the low income scale are often resentful towards those on public assistance, a fact that mirrors my own real world observations.
As an example, if I were to take his advice I might do the following. Campaign in a low income district on the platform that I would reform social security disability. That system is rife with abuse and reform would free up resources for those who are honest and truly hard working.
I don't know for sure if that's the sort of thing he was getting at, but that's what I figure from the clip.
You are reminding me of Bill Gates with how charitable you are being with that interpretation, but I suppose there is a way to get there from what he said.
Yeah I don't have a problem with the idea of an alliance it just quite literally isn't what he said (either because he didn't know what his words meant or he meant what he said).
It's pretty clear that's what he meant. He used a phrase wrong, there's no need to be a dick over it.
Your opponent would probably give counter stories from people who were denied benefits because they worked hard and didn't have money for medical treatment so they didn't have medical records proving disability or the countless other sympathy inducing situations the top reasons disability claims are denied inevitably create. Probably a picture like this
to back up the sympathy stories and support that this has become more common. Use that to say that we agree on reform but disagree on how to do it.
There are a lot of stories in the numbers cheaters represent a small part of the 'problem' + Show Spoiler +
I mean one could go on to point out how medical advancements which would allow for the medically conclusive determination of disabilities naturally going up along with recipients (ex. scanning and diagnosis technology)
The increase expected from population, people who struggled through legitimate disabilities but were fired during the great recession, etc...
There's a lot to deflate those numbers and the deeper one goes talking about who doesn't deserve help (disability in this case) the harder it is to come back when someone points out how many of those people aren't who you made them out to be.
Either way it sounds like a losing political battle in the legacy of Romney's 47% comments.
People who are abusing the disability system is a legitimate problem. To deny that is either dishonest or willfully ignorant.
Of course we don't want to deny legitimate claims, but that's a different issue. Denying illegitimate claims is the goal, and efforts to minimize false positives will obviously be used.
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle.
It's a legitimate problem. It just makes up a relatively insignificant portion of the spending. Doesn't mean it's not worth improving it's just not something one side has over the other. No one is against reducing fraud and abuse (at least rhetorically) so at best it would be something that both sides agreed on.
Not sure why you think defending criminals who are cheating taxpayers is a winning political battle
and more pointedly like he actually said, loosely paint with a broad brush an unspecified portion of disability recipients (and people pointing out characterizations like yours and his as inaccurate) as criminals and their advocates respectively.
Who's painting with a broad brush? "We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice, in her condition, that needs help and that we should help." Clearly its being stressed that many people are in legitimate need. To characterize the issue as something else is dishonest.
You or he or anyone won't put a percentage on it because the same thing that happened to Romney will happen to those who do as you suggest. Either it will be a large headline grabbing percentage that will inevitably include veterans, widows, victims of spousal abuse, etc.. which will make the people calling them criminals look terrible, or it will be as I suggest and be relatively small when viewed in light of the entire program so that even if we were able to remove 100% of the fraud and abuse (which we all know is impossible) it wouldn't really amount to a very big dent in the numbers.
GAO Found That Error Rate In Improper Payments Of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits Is Negligible. A FY2011 investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that improper payments of Social Security benefits that include Disability Insurance had an error rate of just 0.6 percent.
Error rates in improper payments are not what is being discussed. You are citing the wrong data. If someone is approve for disability their payment is not improper as defined by the GAO. You are either ignorant on the topic, or being willfully dishonest.
[1] An improper payment is defined as any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. It includes any payment to an ineligible recipient, any payment for an ineligible service, any duplicate payment, payment for services not received, and any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance also instructs agencies to report payments for which insufficient or no documentation was found as improper payments.
I responded in my edit but I just want to reiterate to make clear what my point is.
Let's get on the table the number/percentage of people we are actually talking about before we move forward.
I suggest the number is small. I have sited data that suggests by any available measurement (I'm aware of), that is an accurate assessment.
You have challenged that assessment and provided a slight undermining of the data I presented. You have provided no relevant data yourself (nor has the person we were discussing, nor anyone on the conservative side of the aisle, here or elsewhere). Outside of some anecdotal evidence from a sample of a few judges and a few hundred cases (The selection methodology of which has not been released or substantiated [to my knowledge]) there is little or nothing concrete to support your insinuation that it is some significant (yet undefined) number.
On May 07 2014 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote: I responded in my edit but I just want to reiterate to make clear what my point is.
Let's get on the table the number/percentage of people we are actually talking about before we move forward.
I suggest the number is small. I have sited data that suggests by any available measurement, (I'm aware of) that is an accurate assessment.
You cited irrelevant data. The problem isn't improper payments (that's the EITC's problem), the problem is people on disability who are fully capable of working.
You have challenged that assessment and provided a slight undermining of the data I presented. You have provided no relevant data yourself (nor has the person we were discussing, nor anyone on the conservative side of the aisle, here or elsewhere). Outside of some anecdotal evidence from a sample of a few judges and a few hundred cases (The selection methodology of which has not been released or substantiated [to my knowledge]) there is little or nothing concrete to support your insinuation that it is some significant (yet undefined) number.
Read the NPR article I cited. The data is very strong that a non-trivial amount of fraud is occurring. There may not be a concrete number but that's the nature of fraud, it is hidden. It's the same story as with the GSEs pre-crisis. The fraud and risky behavior was hidden, and many in Congress wanted to look the other way. We should learn from that past mistake and when we see a problem we should go after it and not wait until it becomes even bigger.
On May 04 2014 06:25 oneofthem wrote: jonny is one of the better posters around and you can dispute his arguments but he does go on facts and arguments.
Jonny ? Arguments ? I thought he only ask questions.
To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate?
On May 04 2014 06:25 oneofthem wrote: jonny is one of the better posters around and you can dispute his arguments but he does go on facts and arguments.
Jonny ? Arguments ? I thought he only ask questions.
On May 07 2014 15:26 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should offer jobs to people who want to work so that they get money in return for work instead of money in return for nothing.
iirc the government in Starship Troopers did that.
On May 07 2014 15:36 IgnE wrote: To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate?
I disagree with the doctor. Disabled is distinct from unskilled.
I think its pretty clear that disability is being used as a replacement for welfare / unemployment insurance / etc. The problem with that is that disability is overwhelmingly a one way street. Disability is mainly disability for life. If was mainly a temporary safety net it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. As is though, its a place for skills to atrophy and hides economic problems, which makes it more difficult for intervention.
On May 04 2014 06:25 oneofthem wrote: jonny is one of the better posters around and you can dispute his arguments but he does go on facts and arguments.
Jonny ? Arguments ? I thought he only ask questions.
On May 07 2014 15:26 IgnE wrote: Maybe we should offer jobs to people who want to work so that they get money in return for work instead of money in return for nothing.
iirc the government in Starship Troopers did that.
The "state" did that throughout the entire medieval era. In France, poor people were forced to build tower and then destroy them to rebuild them again. It would have great impact on GDP.
On May 07 2014 14:58 GreenHorizons wrote: I responded in my edit but I just want to reiterate to make clear what my point is.
Let's get on the table the number/percentage of people we are actually talking about before we move forward.
I suggest the number is small. I have sited data that suggests by any available measurement, (I'm aware of) that is an accurate assessment.
You cited irrelevant data. The problem isn't improper payments (that's the EITC's problem), the problem is people on disability who are fully capable of working.
You have challenged that assessment and provided a slight undermining of the data I presented. You have provided no relevant data yourself (nor has the person we were discussing, nor anyone on the conservative side of the aisle, here or elsewhere). Outside of some anecdotal evidence from a sample of a few judges and a few hundred cases (The selection methodology of which has not been released or substantiated [to my knowledge]) there is little or nothing concrete to support your insinuation that it is some significant (yet undefined) number.
Read the NPR article I cited. The data is very strong that a non-trivial amount of fraud is occurring. There may not be a concrete number but that's the nature of fraud, it is hidden. It's the same story as with the GSEs pre-crisis. The fraud and risky behavior was hidden, and many in Congress wanted to look the other way. We should learn from that past mistake and when we see a problem we should go after it and not wait until it becomes even bigger.
It's not irrelevant. It covers all/the vast majority of mis-payments that aren't "people on disability who are fully capable of working". So now we are down to them exclusively. Keep in mind the original Senate candidate we started this conversation on was not talking about what you and I are talking about now. He was talking about people who were receiving aid as a ~"result of their own choices" which is a whole different group of people by any interpretation no matter how charitable.
Now for those "people on disability who are fully capable of working". You say you have'very strong data'that these 'criminals' represent 'a non-trivial amount of fraud'
You claim the evidence is hidden. You claim that somehow the NPR article elucidates those hidden facts. I am open to seeing the evidence as I want to reduce fraud and abuse as much as the next guy, but you haven't shown what you claim to be the case.
The data showing the growth in disability payments and related statistics doesn't control or represent the nuance in any of the many, many, many, factors that caused those numbers to rise. (aging population, increased diagnosis of legitimate disabling mental conditions [PTSD {2 wars, more since the 70's}, Schizophrenia, etc.., other medical advances in diagnostics, and more completely legitimate explanations for the increases).
So without you even trying to suggest a ball park of how many of the numbers you have shown are the "people on disability who are fully capable of working" I can't just agree to the rest of your claims.
Even if with your tea leaves you were able to see this 'hidden' fraud, it's really hard to take sincerely your attempt to claim it's 'non-trivial' in one breath and say you can't even ball-park it in the next.
Whether you ever come out with any sort of actual estimate with or without evidence (so far without) you're totally proving my point.
You or he or anyone won't put a percentage/number on it because the same thing that happened to Romney will happen to those who do as you suggest. Either it will be a large headline grabbing percentage that will inevitably include veterans, widows, victims of spousal abuse, etc.. which will make the people calling them criminals look terrible, or it will be as I suggest and be relatively small when viewed in light of the entire program so that even if we were able to remove 100% of the fraud and abuse (which we all know is impossible) it wouldn't really amount to a very big dent in the numbers.
On May 07 2014 15:36 IgnE wrote: To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate?
I disagree with the doctor. Disabled is distinct from unskilled.
I think its pretty clear that disability is being used as a replacement for welfare / unemployment insurance / etc. The problem with that is that disability is overwhelmingly a one way street. Disability is mainly disability for life. If was mainly a temporary safety net it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. As is though, its a place for skills to atrophy and hides economic problems, which makes it more difficult for intervention.
So what do you say to people who say, "There just aren't any jobs out there that I can do with this debilitating back pain. No one will hire me to sit all day because I'm 40 years old and didn't complete my college education." Too bad? Take some oxycontin and work at McDonalds like everybody else?
Why do you think it's a problem that unskilled people are collecting disability? Do you just want them to collect welfare rather than disability for accounting's sake? Or do you think it's causing some serious budget difficulties that can only be remedied by cutting these programs?
On May 07 2014 15:36 IgnE wrote: To jonny specifically: Do you agree with the doctor in that NPR article you linked that whether a person with a particular physical hindrance/affliction/condition is disabled depends on their education level and job skills?
Second question that I also would like your opinion on: Do you think that the numbers might have simply increased as a way to get money to live on rather than welfare because the great recession killed a bunch of jobs that people, especially those without much education, relied on and that haven't come back? Would you rather have people on disability who aren't disabled but really can't find work or have a higher unemployment rate?
I disagree with the doctor. Disabled is distinct from unskilled.
I think its pretty clear that disability is being used as a replacement for welfare / unemployment insurance / etc. The problem with that is that disability is overwhelmingly a one way street. Disability is mainly disability for life. If was mainly a temporary safety net it wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. As is though, its a place for skills to atrophy and hides economic problems, which makes it more difficult for intervention.
So what do you say to people who say, "There just aren't any jobs out there that I can do with this debilitating back pain. No one will hire me to sit all day because I'm 40 years old and didn't complete my college education." Too bad? Take some oxycontin and work at McDonalds like everybody else?
Why do you think it's a problem that unskilled people are collecting disability? Do you just want them to collect welfare rather than disability for accounting's sake? Or do you think it's causing some serious budget difficulties that can only be remedied by cutting these programs?
You should try to answer your question with the opposite extreme hypothetical. Say you have a perfectly healthy 25 year old who simply doesn't want to work and they apply for worker's compensation claiming they are lazy. Should the government give it to this person, even though they clearly do not qualify for it and has no justification to receive money paid by everyone else?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sBc2zlT.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/s0SAd5y.png)
