Food Stamp Fraud

[G8trGr8t]

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only arguement? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

[G8trGr8t]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1879791.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security is so overwhelmed by disability claims that some officials are awarding benefits without adequately reviewing applications, potentially adding to the program's financial problems as it edges closer to the brink of insolvency, congressional investigators say in a new report.

In more than a quarter of the 300 cases reviewed by congressional staff, decisions to award benefits "failed to properly address insufficient, contradictory or incomplete evidence." In many cases, officials approved disability benefits without citing adequate medical evidence or without explaining the medical basis for the decision, according to the report by the Republican staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

In some cases, it appeared that administrative law judges struggling to reduce backlogs didn't take the time to review all the evidence, the report said. The judges are expected to rule on at least 500 cases a year, with one judge deciding an average of 1,800 cases a year for three straight years, the report said.

"The administrative law judges are not looking at the cases because the pressure from Social Security is to get the cases out," said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the subcommittee. "I think you could flip a coin for anybody that came before the Social Security commission for disability and get it right just as often as the (judges) do."

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only argument? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

does it matter when it started or who is responsible for it? is that your only arguement? how about the fact that it is wasting money or that this proves that there is plenty of room to cut without impacting those that truly meet the qualifications or does none of that matter in your world?

Kind of. If gatorman had posted something like your diatribe, I don't think I would have responded. But his position that the Obama Administration relaxed the requirements for disability hasn't been supported just yet. The closest he's come is

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

LOL, Disability welfare
Its all part of the welfare program. When someone claims mental illness because their unemployment runs out they go onto the welfare roles

Which makes it clear he believes that welfare is the same as disability. Of course he's categorically incorrect. I'm assuming you won't correct him, but maybe he'll stumble upon some article (or google search with "difference between welfare and disability") that might.

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

Could be. I've yet to see anyone say anything contrary to your allegation concerning the Obama Administration and welfare. We're talking about disability. Remember?

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Good excuse, it's obvious the federal government has relaxed standards for welfare and disability. Medicare, Medicaid, and SS should not exist in their current form.

If you misspoke/mistyped, fine. No problem. It happens. If it is still your belief that the Obama Administration has "relaxed standards" for disability, I'd like to see something to support your assertion.

[G8trGr8t]

see post 22. from the liberal rag no less so you should have no problem with the source.

this economy that 0 is responsible for is pushing more and more people to apply and political forces are pushing for cases to be resolved.

lawyers are running a whole industry of appeakling SSI cases for fee because they know that if they push enough cases up, they will get approved because the numbers are overwhelming the system.

Do you think that there are that many more people that qualify or that there are that many more people that have decided it is the easiest course of action under this administration?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Could be. I've yet to see anyone say anything contrary to your allegation concerning the Obama Administration and welfare. We're talking about disability. Remember?



If you misspoke/mistyped, fine. No problem. It happens. If it is still your belief that the Obama Administration has "relaxed standards" for disability, I'd like to see something to support your assertion.

Um, does disability welfare mean anything to you?

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

see post 22. from the liberal rag no less so you should have no problem with the source.

this economy that 0 is responsible for is pushing more and more people to apply and political forces are pushing for cases to be resolved.

lawyers are running a whole industry of appeakling SSI cases for fee because they know that if they push enough cases up, they will get approved because the numbers are overwhelming the system.

Do you think that there are that many more people that qualify or that there are that many more people that have decided it is the easiest course of action under this administration?

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

Why the sudden large increase? Nobody said anything about putting all the blame on him but certainly he is compounding the problem.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Absolutely agree with the bolded. No question it's part of the problem. But again, the issue I have is with laying all of this on the current President.

In 2011, 3,041,500 applications were filed for SSI. In 2008, that number was 2,827,541. In 2001, it was 2,084,828.

I whole-heartedly agree that this is a trend that deserves to be examined. But to claim that it started with Obama is categorically false.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html

applications in 2001 were 1.5 million accoding to the ssa. In 10 years, applications have risen 100%. Another unsustainable gubmnt program stealing from future generations.

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html

applications in 2001 were 1.5 million accoding to the ssa. In 10 years, applications have risen 100%. Another unsustainable gubmnt program stealing from future generations.

First, just to avoid the confusion that would be bound to follow -- your link refers to disabled worker beneficiaries. SSI is a different program, with separate statistics.

But, you've provided a wonderful backdrop for the discussion. The rise in applications is staggering between 2001 and 2011.

I guess you'd agree then that it probably wouldn't be accurate to suggest that the rise in claims is because the Obama Administration relaxed standards for disability?

[gatorman_07732]

The explosion of people receiving government assistance under Obama means nothing....got it. People going from unemployment to disability for emotional distress means nothing....right

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Really? That was provided in my very first link, but instead your eyes gravited on the graph and commented solely based on that

No, really I based that on reading the article you linked, seeing that it too had absolutely no support for its claims.

No comment on the point that the increase looks to be more or less the same as it has been since Bush I's term?

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

When an argument can't be defended these are the games that are played. Obama has relaxes welfare requirements and its absolutely undeniable. It's up across the board

Someone made an argument that can't be defended... but it ain't me.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with SS disability, but I also wasn't spouting unfounded claims that it was O's fault.

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

The explosion of people receiving government assistance under Obama means nothing....got it. People going from unemployment to disability for emotional distress means nothing....right

But, of course, I never said that. You, however, did say this:

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Now I was born in the morning but not yesterday morning. You don't get this type of increase without relaxing the system.

while simultaneously linking an article that blamed Obama for "loosening eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability.

Which wasn't true when it was written. Wasn't true when you linked it. And still isn't true after your backpedaling.

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Why the sudden large increase? Nobody said anything about putting all the blame on him but certainly he is compounding the problem.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

But, of course, I never said that. You, however, did say this:



while simultaneously linking an article that blamed Obama for "loosening eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability.

Which wasn't true when it was written. Wasn't true when you linked it. And still isn't true after your backpedaling.

Seriously? I did not say the problem started with Obama, but it is reaching record levels of particpation under Obama. What about this is unclear to you?

[Matthanuf06]

Obama is POTUS. He runs this ship and is responsible. Entitlements and dependency is way up. Whether or not he directly caused it is irrelevant as he's allowing it to continue.

That's how you know he's okay with it.

And the folks looking for a smoking gun are dreaming.

When it comes to things that will hurt politically, politics is like the mafia. The higher ups want insulation and deniability.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

No, really I based that on reading the article you linked, seeing that it too had absolutely no support for its claims.

No comment on the point that the increase looks to be more or less the same as it has been since Bush I's term?

This does not surprise me that you claim to have read something you clearly haven't.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/2...-general-fund/

The Obama Administration’s loosened eligibility requirements for Social Security Disability have swelled the number of those on Medicaid in California. It is Obama’s relaxed requirements for Social Security Disability — put into place by Obama Administration appointees and coupled with declining federal funds — that is busting the California general fund budget at this time.

From unemployment to disability like a finely tuned machine

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This does not surprise me that you claim to have read something you clearly haven't.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/09/2...-general-fund/



From unemployment to disability like a finely tuned machine

So because this site CLAIMS he did it, with no other proof, links showing the exec order or what ever he might have done to make it happen, it is fact?

Doesn't surprise me you have no clue.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

So because this site CLAIMS he did it, with no other proof, links showing the exec order or what ever he might have done to make it happen, it is fact?

Doesn't surprise me you have no clue.

Have you even looked at the link? They are a cali watchdog group and have laid out all the numbers and all sourced. You didn't even open it