Food Stamp Fraud

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

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

Opened it... read it... didn't see a single source in it. And by source I mean something other than a link to their own sites, a blog, or an op-ed. I'm talking about a link to a document that shows O making a policy statement, or Exec order, or SOMETHING, that shows it hasn't been same o'l some ol' under O as it has been under everyone else since Bush I.

But again, if O is responsible, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

Look at your own graph and get real.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't something wrong but I would have a hard time looking at the numbers and seeing where O's policies have affected the increase of people going on disability.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Opened it... read it... didn't see a single source in it. And by source I mean something other than a link to their own sites, a blog, or an op-ed. I'm talking about a link to a document that shows O making a policy statement, or Exec order, or SOMETHING, that shows it hasn't been same o'l some ol' under O as it has been under everyone else since Bush I.

But again, if O is responsible, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

Look at your own graph and get real.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't something wrong but I would have a hard time looking at the numbers and seeing where O's policies have affected the increase of people going on disability.

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well

Still dodging my question by trying to say I didn't read it.... lame.

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

WOW, you need to look again because you didn't look to well

Let's make this easier for you. Unfortunately it has become required.

Can you name one thing President Obama has done to "loosen eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Still dodging my question by trying to say I didn't read it.... lame.

I dodge nothing:

Source: California Department of Finance; http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2455


also the piece is loaded with other sources

[CharlestonGator]

Nana knows gov't is inefficient at preventing fraud--she admitted that in her post ("decades"). She ain't going to admit to the possibility that private enterprise, which has been the backbone of innovation throughout our country's history, could do better at preventing fraud. In fact, she's going to imply (with no proof) that it would only get worse under private enterprise. Thats what happens when you are a devoted team member and blindly support your team even though you admit the current gov't run programs have been littered with fraud for decades. Whats the saying...to keep doing things the same way and expecting different results...................

Another gov't beauty:
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/re...image_headline


A 2010 report compiled from government audits and reports by the Government Accountability Office, inspectors general and Congress found that more than $1 billion was sent to more than 250,000 dead people over 10 years.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/financing/re...#ixzz2M2GmsDk0
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

so is it your belief that private companies are less effective at locating and minimizing fraud than the gubmnt is? Really?? If the gubmnt offered to pay any private corporation 50% of the fraud they could uncover the companies would be lining up at the gate to cash that check.

Private enterprise is much more efficient than the gubmnt will ever be. They have to be to remain in business. Unless you are too big too fail which seems to be what this gubmnt likes and encourages with their regulatory environment.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Let's make this easier for you. Unfortunately it has become required.

Can you name one thing President Obama has done to "loosen eligibility requirements" for Social Security Disability?

Right, nothing here about relaxing standards. You ignored my first link that gave proof and if you choose to ignore the huge increase of people receiving government assistance and say they are not encouraging this then I say you are not being honest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...jobs-policies/

I wish to throw the social security disability into the mix of anti-job programs. The disability program is not the creation of the Obama administration, but Obama appointees have set and interpreted its policies for more than three years. Let’s examine their record:

At this time in the election cycle four years ago, 7.2 million workers were on social security disability. Today, the number is 8.7 million – an increase of 1.5 million, or twenty percent. The 1.5 million disability recipients under Obama are “no longer in the labor force.” They are, it appears, safely shelved outside the labor force, which they no longer reenter to potentially swell the ranks of the unemployed.

As disabilities explore new highs, the labor force participation rate (the labor force divided by the working age population) plumbs new lows. Under Obama, an incredible 8.6 million have dropped out of the labor force, 1.5 million of them due to disability. Making disability “the new normal” has contributed almost twenty percent of the declining percentage of Americans available for work.

Why have disabilities increased by 20 percent under the Obama administration? Have Americans have suddenly become less healthy or more accident prone? Under normal conditions, we expect disabilities to rise with the population, which would be a four percent increase, not a 20 percent increase. It should be noted that disability is meant only for long-term health problems. Unemployment insurance and worker compensation are there for short term issues.

A study by the super-non partisan National Bureau of Economic Research explains the reasons for the rise in disability.

First, the Social Security Administration now places more weight on self-reported pain and discomfort, has relaxed the screening of mental illness, and accepts medical evidence from the applicant’s own doctor. The share of awards for mental illness rose from 16 percent in 1983 to one third in 2010, while the share of back pain rose from 13 percent in 1983 to 28 percent. Together they account for more than half of disabilities. Of the 2.7 million workers on disability for mental disorders, 1.7 million have “intellectual and mood disorders.” Even young people can be declared disabled if they get nervous at work or school, have attention deficit disorders, or are not very intelligent.

Second, the application process has been streamlined. Applicants can begin on line, and they are entitled to a free call from a lawyer. Slick law firms specialize in navigating clients through the bureaucratic maze, and their appeals for clients fill the airwaves. If applicant claims are denied, they can appeal to administrative judges, who overturn examiners in half of their cases. Some administrative judges achieved notoriety by never turning down a disability appeal. No wonder. They can be reprimanded and their decisions set aside for “talking down to claimants” or for “lack of respect.” To cite one superior court verdict: “Applicants for social security disability payments, most of whom are truly ill or disabled, are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity no matter what the merits of their respective claims.”

Third, the relative economic attractiveness of disability has increased. The NBER study finds that, for low-income workers, disability (plus Medicare) replaces almost 90 percent of working income. During recessions, wages decline, and workers at or near the minimum wage receive almost as much income through disability as by working. The system itself raises disability claims during recessions.

Disability, as the new normal, is only one factor contributing to slow job growth. Companies will not create jobs if their tax, health insurance, and regulatory costs are not predictable. But a shrinking work force slows down job creation as well. Almost by definition, job creation depends on the number of people wishing to work at wages employers are willing to pay. As fewer people seek employment under prevailing wage and work conditions, the number of jobs shrinks. There may be plenty of minimum wage jobs out there, but if disability is the preferred option, there will be fewer job takers and fewer jobs.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I dodge nothing:

Source: California Department of Finance; http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2455


also the piece is loaded with other sources

As you dodge again.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

As you dodge again.

I have no idea what your talking about. I have offered information upon information and you just want to play games. You're the one that claimed there wasn't a single source in the link and claimed that you opened it, but either way you're being disingenuous.

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

In have no idea what your talking about. I have offered information upon information and you just want to play games You're the one that claimed there wasn't a single source in the link and claimed that you opened it, but either way you're being disingenuous.

The question, several pages back, repeated a few times I have is -

If this is all O's fault as you say, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Right, nothing here about relaxing standards. You ignored my first link that gave proof and if you choose to ignore the huge increase of people receiving government assistance and say they are not encouraging this then I say you are not being honest.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...jobs-policies/

Do you understand that this

"First, the Social Security Administration now places more weight on self-reported pain and discomfort, has relaxed the screening of mental illness, and accepts medical evidence from the applicant’s own doctor."

is coming from a paper written in 2006? And that the conclusion was that this shift occurred in 1984?

So we're talking about a relaxation in standards that happened in 1984?

I hate to admit that I really need to ask these questions. I thought we made progress when you admitted that the blame doesn't all fall on Obama. But you swiftly posted to this incorrect "watchdog" link again and started beating your chest and howling like Tarzan. So it's a little unclear.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

The question, several pages back, repeated a few times I have is -

If this is all O's fault as you say, why is the rate of change basically unchanged since Bush I's term?

I answered your question and I said it didn't start with Obama but he is compounding the problme. Perhaps you missed the post

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I answered your question and I said it didn't start with Obama but he is compounding the problme. Perhaps you missed the post

Must have missed that one.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Do you understand that this



is coming from a paper written in 2006? And that the conclusion was that this shift occurred in 1984?

So we're talking about a relaxation in standards that happened in 1984?

I hate to admit that I really need to ask these questions. I thought we made progress when you admitted that the blame doesn't all fall on Obama. But you swiftly posted to this incorrect "watchdog" link again and started beating your chest and howling like Tarzan. So it's a little unclear.

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

[GatrHeel]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

Dodge?

[enviroGator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

You have refused to answer the question in how you explain the explosion of disability under this administration.

Look at your own chart AGAIN and you will see the last year of Bush II's term was the biggest "explosion". So apparently it was Bush's fault! LOL! I couldn't resist..

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by enviroGator

Look at your own chart AGAIN and you will see the last year of Bush II's term was the biggest "explosion". So apparently it was Bush's fault! LOL! I couldn't resist..

I never exempted Bush from being a "compassionate conservative" AKA a moderate liberal but the fact of the matter is we continually are on the rise. He was a big program guy which I never liked. However that said, all the numbers reflected show an obvious explosion under Obama.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatrHeel

Dodge?

Talk about didge, I've been asking you the same question the whole thread