This is important to note. SS doesn't even cover basic living expenses anymore. Partial's scam of spending all his money on candy and stereos at 64 to be eligible for SS at 65 is not so attractive. Probably there is some way to do means testing that people will accept.Originally Posted by digitaldean
I think your perspective is misleading. I've talked to people who know what they are talking about (non-profit lawyers for medicaid, medicare, social security, ....) and they suggest that SS disability is rather hard to get, and not so hard to lose. (I know one guy who needs it, very schizophrenic, and he loses it periodically.) You're right, it often takes three tries, but that is to build a stronger case, create documentation from doctors over a period of time.This is a pet peve of mine. The truly disabled people should be receiving benefits............but OMG, there are SO many people playing this system. I see it everyday and it makes me sick!! I've seen so many people apply for disability for their kids. It will get rejected the first and second time. If they are persistent they will get the benefits on the 3rd try. Once they are qualified, look out. I've seen adults who are collecting disability benefits since they were kids and when you ask them why, they can't even tell you the reason. Believe me all, this is where your fight should be....not the 70 year olds collecting SS benefits.
If people are scamming SS for disability benefits, it is in collusion with doctor(s). Maybe it happens. Perhaps there is a need to detect criminal activity better. I have a hard time believing it is widespread.
I have no idea if it's widespread but I've seen it... a lot. Maybe it is a few select doctors "helping" them out, I don't know. And you are right, there are many people out there that should be eligible and can't get it. I have a friend who's wife is mentally ill and they were told no way. He earns a decent wage but nothing fantastic and they have 4 children. My perspective on this may seem misleading to you but believe me, I've been frustrated over this type of thing for years. I've seen people that should receive it get turned down and others that can work receive it....along with housing and food stamps....and WIC. Maybe they need more people to investigate those robbing the system.I think your perspective is misleading. I've talked to people who know what they are talking about (non-profit lawyers for medicaid, medicare, social security, ....) and they suggest that SS disability is rather hard to get, and not so hard to lose. (I know one guy who needs it, very schizophrenic, and he loses it periodically.) You're right, it often takes three tries, but that is to build a stronger case, create documentation from doctors over a period of time.This is a pet peve of mine. The truly disabled people should be receiving benefits............but OMG, there are SO many people playing this system. I see it everyday and it makes me sick!! I've seen so many people apply for disability for their kids. It will get rejected the first and second time. If they are persistent they will get the benefits on the 3rd try. Once they are qualified, look out. I've seen adults who are collecting disability benefits since they were kids and when you ask them why, they can't even tell you the reason. Believe me all, this is where your fight should be....not the 70 year olds collecting SS benefits.
If people are scamming SS for disability benefits, it is in collusion with doctor(s). Maybe it happens. Perhaps there is a need to detect criminal activity better. I have a hard time believing it is widespread.
The FED is a freaking joke and Bernanke should hit the road with Spitzer. With this kind of shit going on you know a Bush is involved.
C.H.U.D.
Socialism for the rich, 200 billion worth.
C.H.U.D.
Tora Tora Tora!
C.H.U.D.
Taxes anyone?
http://www.economist.com/daily/chart...ry_id=10835581
Damn.
C.H.U.D.
That is also the problem. A system that barely amounts to a impoverished existance costs American workers how much? It is a joke.
It is the kind of inefficiency that can only be produced by Washington...and why I am scared shitless over letting the government control health care, or really anything else for that matter.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
Freak Out is freaking out.
I was..
I get pissed when I hear our president make jokes during a news conference about problems with the dollar and the economy when the situation is dire for many of his fellow citizens.
C.H.U.D.
U.S. Home Defaults, Foreclosures Rise 60% in February (Update2)
By Alan Mirabella and Sharon L. Lynch
March 13 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. home foreclosure filings jumped 60 percent and bank seizures more than doubled in February as rates on adjustable mortgages rose and property owners were unable to sell or refinance amid falling prices.
More than 223,000 properties were in some stage of default, or 1 in every 557 U.S. households, Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc., a seller of foreclosure data, said today in a statement. Nevada, California and Florida had the highest rates.
``With declining prices, there is a pervasive problem of not being able to refinance or sell,'' said Susan Wachter, professor of real estate at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in Philadelphia. ``I'm very concerned.''
About $460 billion of adjustable-rate mortgages are scheduled to reset this year and another $420 billion will rise in 2011, according to New York-based analysts at Citigroup Inc. Homeowners faced higher payments as fourth-quarter home prices fell 8.9 percent, the biggest drop in 20 years as measured by the S&P/Case- Shiller home price index.
``This is continuing to worsen,'' Wachter said in an interview. ``It tells us that we are not at a bottom.''
Foreclosure filings are likely to be ``explosive'' in May and June as more payments jump, after remaining at current levels this month and next, Rick Sharga, executive vice president of RealtyTrac, said in an interview. There may be between 750,000 and 1 million bank repossessions in 2008. Bank seizures rose 110 percent in February from a year ago, he said.
`Vicious Cycle'
``We're in a vicious cycle,'' Sharga said. ``We've got depreciating home values and loans resetting at an outstanding volume just as banks are retrenching. Even people who want to buy a home now are having trouble getting a mortgage.''
February was the 26th consecutive month of year-on-year monthly foreclosure increases, Sharga said. Total filings fell 4 percent last month from the previous month, said RealtyTrac, which compiles statistics from a database of more than 1 million properties and monitors default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions.
A surge in defaults among subprime borrowers spurred the collapse of the U.S. home loan market and has led more than 100 mortgage companies to stop lending, close or sell themselves. As the value of securities tied to mortgages plummeted, lenders and securities firms have written down more than $180 billion in assets tied to home loans.
Rising foreclosures pushed the inventory of existing homes last year to the highest ever, making it more difficult for property owners to sell.
Fed Efforts
Defaults are jumping even as the Federal Reserve has cut the benchmark interest rate five times since September and the Bush administration has urged lenders to help homeowners by modifying mortgage terms.
The Fed, struggling to contain a crisis of confidence in credit markets, said this week it will for the first time lend Treasuries in exchange for debt that includes mortgage-backed securities.
Economists are forecasting the U.S. housing slump will push the economy into a recession this year and there are no signs housing will recover in 2008. U.S. sales of new and existing homes probably will fall to 5 million this year, down 33 percent from the all-time high of 7.46 million in 2005, before rising to 5.23 million in 2009, Freddie Mac said in a March 3 forecast.
Nevada led the nation with the highest foreclosure rate in February. Filings rose 68 percent last month to 6,167 from the year-earlier period. One in every 165 households there was in default or foreclosure, RealtyTrac said.
California, Florida, Texas
California had the second-highest rate with one in every 242 households. Florida was third with one in every 254.
The highest total number of foreclosure actions was in California, followed by Florida and Texas, RealtyTrac said. California reported a total of 53,629 last month, up 131 percent from February 2007. Florida had a total of 32,447, up 69 percent from the year earlier. Texas filings fell 1 percent to 12,261.
The Cape-Coral/Fort Myers, Florida, metropolitan area recorded the highest foreclosure rate of 229 metro areas tracked in the report. Its figure of one per 84 households was almost seven times the national average. Stockton, California, had the second-highest metro area rate.
The Mortgage Bankers Association said March 6 that mortgage foreclosures rose to a record at the end of 2007 as many borrowers with adjustable-rate loans walked away from properties even before their payments increased.
New foreclosures jumped to 0.83 percent of all home loans in the fourth quarter from 0.54 percent a year earlier. Late payments rose to a 23-year high, the Mortgage Bankers said in a report.
Borrowers with adjustable-rate subprime mortgages accounted for 42 percent of new foreclosures in the fourth quarter, according to the report. Those loans accounted for about 7 percent of all mortgages, the report said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Alan Mirabella in New York at amirabella@bloomberg.net; Sharon L. Lynch in New York at sllynchbloomberg.net.
Last Updated: March 13, 2008 11:23 EDT
C.H.U.D.
Please clicko the linko..
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/cost_of_war
C.H.U.D.
Brutal stuff...of course the calvary that is the FED will save the day! Huzzay! Nothing but red........
C.H.U.D.
Freedom ain't free broski. And that deficit is only going to keep growing with Dems and their historical large spending in office. Right now what we need is a true conservative to come in and cut spending big time and keep us safe. You think the economy is shitty now, wait until UniHealth goes live 4 years from now. It'll suck when you pocket 25% of your earnings
I seem to recall that a dem balanced the budget. I seem to recall this president NEVER vetoing any spending bill.Freedom ain't free broski. And that deficit is only going to keep growing with Dems and their historical large spending in office. Right now what we need is a true conservative to come in and cut spending big time and keep us safe. You think the economy is shitty now, wait until UniHealth goes live 4 years from now. It'll suck when you pocket 25% of your earnings
Get serious.
Have you read Stieglitz's projection?
3 billion conservatively for this fiasco. And, the worst part is Bush and his fake accounting skills.
We are so screwed.
This president isn't a true conservative.I seem to recall that a dem balanced the budget. I seem to recall this president NEVER vetoing any spending bill.Freedom ain't free broski. And that deficit is only going to keep growing with Dems and their historical large spending in office. Right now what we need is a true conservative to come in and cut spending big time and keep us safe. You think the economy is shitty now, wait until UniHealth goes live 4 years from now. It'll suck when you pocket 25% of your earnings
Get serious.
The president who balanced the budget also slashed the defense budget into a fraction of what it should have been. 5k Americans were then murdered.
Ok. He ran as a conservative. So, you are calling him a liar.This president isn't a true conservative.I seem to recall that a dem balanced the budget. I seem to recall this president NEVER vetoing any spending bill.Freedom ain't free broski. And that deficit is only going to keep growing with Dems and their historical large spending in office. Right now what we need is a true conservative to come in and cut spending big time and keep us safe. You think the economy is shitty now, wait until UniHealth goes live 4 years from now. It'll suck when you pocket 25% of your earnings
Get serious.
The president who balanced the budget also slashed the defense budget into a fraction of what it should have been. 5k Americans were then murdered.
Slashed defense. LOL.
So, the defense that led us to victory is on Bush? This is just TOO EASY.
"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow."
In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Let me remind you of what BUSH CAMPAIGNED ON!!
During his presidential campaign Bush charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life."
5k: Really, interesting that you would blame him for that when intel was clear about it months before. Had nothing to do with defense. Defense has NOTHING TO DO WITH MONITORING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
BTW, i'm sure you'll then exonerate Clinton for the WTC.
partial, you don't know jack shit about what really happened. If you are as you say, a college student...you were 8 years old at best when Clinton took over.
Come on, Ty. Screwed? Over $3B???
Our national debt is approaching $10 TRILLION...and it amounts to roughly $1.75B every DAY!
Our monthly trade deficit alone is $58 billion...and our total trade deficit to date is approaching $150 TRILLION!
$3B is pocket change compared to the real economic issues facing this economy.
My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?
\Ok. He ran as a conservative. So, you are calling him a liar.This president isn't a true conservative.I seem to recall that a dem balanced the budget. I seem to recall this president NEVER vetoing any spending bill.Freedom ain't free broski. And that deficit is only going to keep growing with Dems and their historical large spending in office. Right now what we need is a true conservative to come in and cut spending big time and keep us safe. You think the economy is shitty now, wait until UniHealth goes live 4 years from now. It'll suck when you pocket 25% of your earnings
Get serious.
The president who balanced the budget also slashed the defense budget into a fraction of what it should have been. 5k Americans were then murdered.
Slashed defense. LOL.
So, the defense that led us to victory is on Bush? This is just TOO EASY.
"A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him," then-vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney said during the 2000 campaign. "There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all the work of previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow."
In fact, the Clinton administration actually spent more money on defense than the previous administration of President George H.W. Bush. The smaller outlays during the first Bush administration were developed and approved by then-Defense Secretary Cheney and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell. The Clinton administration did not coast on Reagan-era procurement funding. During the 1990s, the Pentagon invested more than $1 trillion in developing and procuring new weapons and information technology that gave U.S. forces such an unprecedented advantage in the last two U.S. military campaigns. But more significant than the budget increases was the shift that occurred in the mid-1990s. That shift involved much greater emphasis on precision weapons, sensors, robotics, advanced communications, training, readiness, and orienting the intelligence community toward direct support of military operations. It was that shift that produced the superb military that not only swept through Iraq at a rate that defied historical precedent, but used its awesome force with unprecedented precision and effect, unprecedented low collateral damage, and unprecedented low casualty rates. It was the American Revolution in Military Affairs begun in the Clinton administration that was unveiled in Bush's Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Let me remind you of what BUSH CAMPAIGNED ON!!
During his presidential campaign Bush charged that the Clinton administration had overburdened the U.S. military with too many deployments overseas, and he promised to pare those military obligations. "Resources are overstretched," he said. "Frustration is up, as families are separated and strained. Morale is down. Recruitment is more difficult. And many of our best people in the military are headed for civilian life."
5k: Really, interesting that you would blame him for that when intel was clear about it months before. Had nothing to do with defense. Defense has NOTHING TO DO WITH MONITORING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
BTW, i'm sure you'll then exonerate Clinton for the WTC.
partial, you don't know jack shit about what really happened. If you are as you say, a college student...you were 8 years old at best when Clinton took over.
That's correct, I don't remember any of the Clinton campaign. I know that Clinton's budget balancing act led to us getting attacked soon after W took over.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote